Introducing Private Networking - <AUTHOR> https://www.digitalocean.com/blog_posts/introducing-private-networking <comment><USER2> > This address is only accessible from other other servers in the NYC2 region > that have private networking enabled.

Probably a really stupid question: is that interface only accessible from other servers in the same Digital Ocean account (in the NYC2 region w/priv networking enabled), or to every machine across all DO accounts (in the NYC2 region w/private networking enabled)?

<comment><USER3> All machines in NYC2 region are accessible via this private network.

<comment><USER2> It might be worth noting that in the tutorial. While this has a lot of great benefits for people that move a lot of data around between their servers, it doesn't really improve security at all.

<comment><USER4> But it is a lot cheaper as it doesn't count against your monthly bandwidth. I read this as "cost savings plus added security."

<comment><USER5> "plus added security"

In one sense the security is "added". But in another sense it's a false sense of security. Because if someone wants to get at you the simply have to get a DO server in the same place and potentially exploit the fact that people have their guard down. (The closest example I can think of is people who have firewall and don't spend as much time locking down the machines behind the firewall because they think they are covered.)

<comment><USER6> The real security this provides is that now your access polices for firewall are much simplified. You can maintain a very reasonable back end network of hosts that aren't exposed to the public Internet and spin up a droplet to be your jump/bastion box, run certificates and lock SSH down to a sane source to an individual host (only the jump/bastion and not public).

Beyond that it adds no functional security - in fact port scanning on the inside will be much more fruitful with regard to services that default to starting on 0.0.0.0. With that in mind - make sure you're not exposing things that you don't mean to be on the backend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They also seem to have fixed the routing issues in Europe:

        $ ping -n -c 4 speedtest-ams1.digitalocean.com
        PING speedtest-ams1.digitalocean.com (22.214.171.124) 56(84) bytes of data.
        64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: icmp_req=1 ttl=55 time=35.2 ms
        64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: icmp_req=2 ttl=55 time=36.2 ms
        64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: icmp_req=3 ttl=55 time=35.1 ms
        64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: icmp_req=4 ttl=55 time=33.8 ms

        --- speedtest-ams1.digitalocean.com ping statistics ---
        4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.854/35.095/36.208/0.845 ms

It used to be over 100ms, almost as much as to NYC2.

<comment><USER8> According to Digitalocean the routing issue wasn't on their side. From what I could see, the cause of the latency was asymmetric routing. Some of my Amsterdam -> Amsterdam traffic had its return traffic sent via NY. This was resolved when they got more bandwidth and were able to disconnect Cogent some time last week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> When will they introduce IPv6? They could then allocate a /64 to each customer and the customer can then firewall off their own little corner. 2013 is not a year when IPv6 is optional.

<comment><USER10> They started it but no ETA yet:

[http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital- ocea...](http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital- ocean/suggestions/2639897-ipv6-addresses)

<comment><USER9> That ticket is going to be a year old soon.

<comment><USER11> There's a recent, more promising reply, though:

"Once the initial rollout of [private networking to] the first region is finished we'll be moving to get IPv6 enabled in our NY2 region first and are targeting an October ETA for the first public beta!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was at first skeptic about DigitalOcean, and thought they wouldn't survive, but here they are and constantly upgrading.

I remember days when Linode lovers where bashing on IRC..oh they were so wrong

Overall, nice job Digital Ocean!

<comment><USER5> "and thought they wouldn't survive, but here they are and constantly upgrading."

I wish them well and they seem to be doing a good job as you are saying. But don't confuse being able to "survive" for 2 years approx (founded 6/2011) as a result of raising over 3 million dollars (ref: crunchbase) with long term survival.

One of the first things I learned back in the mid 90's was the expression "the great provider today can be the shit provider tomorrow" (that was in reference to bandwidth providers btw.)

[http://www.crunchbase.com/company/digitalocean](http://www.crunchbase.com/company/digitalocean)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was getting really close to switching to another cloud hosting provider due to the lack of private networks. Great to see that Digital Ocean is staying a step ahead.

<comment><AUTHOR> isn't DO technically a VPS and not cloud provider?

<comment><USER13> I dont normally count Host with Per Minute billing and Storage in SAN a VPS.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think disks are local

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you please provide a reference? Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Out of interest what do people use this for?

<comment><USER15> hmm... are we still in hacker news?

<comment><USER16> Not everyone is born with intrinsic knowledge of systems administration. Deriding someone for attempting to expand their knowledge is disgusting and needs to stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I spun up my first unmanaged server this morning on digitalocean and found the experience difficult (having next to no sysadmin experience) but now I've got it all set up it's fast and powerful.

I love the work these guys are doing and can't wait to see more from them.

<comment><USER18> Awesome, glad to hear that the experience turned around for you. We do have a ton of articles in our community section to help you get started as others have mentioned:

[https://www.digitalocean.com/community](https://www.digitalocean.com/community)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let me preface by saying: I LOVE DIGITALOCEAN... However...

For the past two days I have been evaluating a production system for my client base (which is primarily in the North Texas and Oklahoma Area. Here are my ServerBear results:

UnixBench score: 3453.0 I/O rate: 354.0 MB/second Bandwidth rate: 24.5 MB/second Bandwidth to Dallas: 1.4 MB/s

and

UnixBench score: 3906.2 I/O rate: 369.0 MB/second Bandwidth rate: 17.2 MB/second Bandwidth to Dallas: 4.2 MB/second

All in all, I decided to go with a managed Linode server. I'll be paying out the ass for it... but I think the bandwidth to my client base is more important.

EDIT: I host just about all of my other projects on DO and I love it :)

<comment><USER18> When it comes to pure throughput there's unfortunately no way around physical proximity, but glad to hear the rest of your projects are on DO =]

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds like this is one big subnet that _all_ droplets (with the "private" interface) will be in (i.e. a single broadcast domain).

Keep that in mind when designing security into your applications.

<comment><USER21> That's correct. DO does some filtering to prevent networks from leaking to a different droplet's interface. However, we recommend that the users protect both public and private interfaces with iptables filters and use encryption where the data stored or transfered is sensitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great news for the NYC2 datacenter. I'm just waiting for the SFO to have this feature, among other things. One other critical feature I think should be implemented is the ability deploying instances to different physical hosts in master/slave setups, either automatically or manually[0].

[0]: [http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital- ocea...](http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital- ocean/suggestions/3859618-deploy-to-physically-separated-hardware)

</comment><comment><USER23> Needs VLAN support, atleast it's not on by default (yet), or someone might have the inkling to scan all internal IPs for people who didn't secure that networking interface.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just signed up for DO mostly just as a layer of separation for when I am on IRC. Very impressed with them and thinking about many other possibilities now. Keep it up DO!

<comment><USER25> >> just as a layer of separation for when I am on IRC

What do you mean by this? Using your DO VM as a proxy?

<comment><USER24> Essentially, yes. Sometimes as a proxy and sometimes straight from shell (irssi). My long term goal is to tailor an IRC bot to represent me virtually while I am unavailable (at work, etc).

<comment><USER26> Just get an IRC boucer. I like BIP.

<comment><USER24> I'm talking about AI style responses based off a dataset I provide. Not just presence. =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> archlinux template seems to not correctly bring up networking with private IP enabled.

</comment><comment><USER28> iperf results: 0.0-10.0 sec 1.10 GBytes 941 Mbits/sec.

Same for 20, 30, and 40 seconds.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is this not bounded to a particular tenant? Meaning if I have a droplet I can hammer/DoS/or exploit test other tenants? Obviously people should be giving these private IPs the normal care and concern that they give their "public" IP, but with many other vendors these are by default externally limited to images that you own, effectively providing layers of defense.

EDIT: Note that I ask this specifically because the term _private_ networking may be misleading to some. These are non-publicly routed, but they most certainly aren't private.

<comment><USER3> That is correct, it's not bound by tenant.

Most other providers do not restrict private network either, I'm talking about the big ones like RackSpace, Amazon and others.

What you're talking about is dedicated private VLAN's or private subnet's and that is not common especially in a cloud environment.

<comment><USER30> That's not entirely true. While Rackspace does provide a shared private network for intra-DC communication, it also provides the Cloud Networks product that is capable of creating tenant specific networks. Think VLAN tagging for Cloud.

On that private network, you can use your own addressing, use multi-cast, etc. Much less limited and more secure than a shared private network. It's also free.

Mandatory Disclosure: I work for Rack.

<comment><USER31> The last time I looked in the Rackspace docs, it looked like this was in the process of being rolled out ("production ready but will be available to customers in a phased release"). Is Cloud Networks considered fully supported now?

<comment><USER30> Sorry for the slow reply. Yes - Cloud Networks is fully supported.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


TikTok being investigated in the U.K. for handling of children's data and safety - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/02/tiktok-is-being-investigated-in-the-u-k-for-how-it-handles-childrens-data-and-safety/ <comment><USER2> Every time I read "tiktok" I have flashbacks from one of paymoneywubby's video [0]. This platform is at the very least extremely disturbing.

It's mild but I'd tag it as NSFW.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmphkNDosg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmphkNDosg)

<comment><USER3> That was a strange mixture of cringe and funny. Thanks ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> TikTok is a strange one - It has some great content, but if you scroll through the home feed, you still stumble on pictures of kids dancing and lipsyncing in... inappropriate ways.

I think this is a pretty limiting barrier to entry for a lot of users.

<comment><USER5> How do you suggest they get rid of those (without an untenably-large moderation staff)?

<comment><USER6> They do already have an extremely large moderation staff. Most likely every piece of content that has a large number of views has been moderated already. If it's visible to you, that means they are OK with that content being available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tiktok has been on a crusade of late and removed millions of videos which has severely deteriorated the user experience.

</comment><comment><USER8> Honest question is there really a correct way to deal with it?

When you have a service that that 40% of traffic is coming from underage how would you keep the weirdos out?

After what happened YouTube I'm glad my kids still need some years before using social media, I hope these problems are solved by them.

<comment><USER9> Idunno TikTok seems fun. I grew up looking at muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch worse (only being 22 now), and I can tell you that the wacky and horrible things I've seen on the internet are 0% of my problems as an adult.

If anything, exposure to terrorist beheadings, creepy pedos, ironic (and less ironic) naziposting, and the rest have made me a more resilient person, with no physical risk. Results may vary, but I'm not sure I would sequester the worst of the internet from kids older than 12 (or the individual kid's mental equivalent), personally.

<comment><USER10> Alternative take: you were going to grow up to be resilient, or believing yourself to be regardless. Those who weren't going to may be affected more deeply, or for much longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this issue just with certain regions (US in particular)? I've watched people using TikTok in Asia and have never seen anything questionable

</comment><comment><USER12> I've been suspicious of TikTok since I've heard of it.

So you're making some social media / video sharing app... not that the world needs another one, but fine, whatever.

Why on earth do you need to spend money on advertising? I've seen multiple ads on YouTube. I know I'm not the target audience, so that had to be expensive.

If you've got funny content, then it'll get posted around, and you'll attract viewers to your site and app. Spending millions on advertising seems weird and creepy to me. But maybe it is just that I'm old.

<comment><USER13> I'm sorry, what? What's supposed to be strange about this? They have a product, why would it be "creepy" that they advertise it?</comment></comment>


Coinbase buy/sell spread dropped to 1 Penny - <AUTHOR> http://detroitcoder.me/2014/01/15/coinbase-buysell-spread-drops-to-1-penny/

<comment><USER2> This happens quite often, not really news.</comment>


Unsexy sells itself [video] - <AUTHOR> http://9slides.com/Talks/Unsexy-sells-itself

<comment><AUTHOR> Another personal take away was, if a sales team wins in A/B test of who can sale more, instead on increasing sales team they learned what sales team did differently and then automated whole thing..which is brilliant!

</comment><comment><USER2> It's nice to see such a candid talk w/ numbers. Thanks for submitting. This kind of content should get any SaaS entrepreneur excited.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting take away: 60% of a purchasing decision is completed before engaging the buyer.</comment>


Trapped in an Elevator for 41 hours: how would a hacker deal with it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bMhNI_TY8 <comment><AUTHOR> Accompanying article: [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all)

<comment><USER2> my god.. do we really need 8 long pages to tell the story of a guy trapped in an elevator?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Start by thinking outside the box.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> First thought: set off fire alarm

Second thought: start opening up the control panel

</comment><comment><USER4> Define himself to be outside the elevator.

</comment><comment><USER5> Call the fire brigade.</comment>


Developers to Tim O'Reilly: "No One Wants A Cure For Cancer, Man" - <AUTHOR> http://www.tekpopuli.com/2008/09/20/developers-to-oreilly-no-one-wants-the-cure-for-cancer-man/

<comment><USER2> is this a joke?

seriously.

i cannot tell. and that makes me sad.

<comment><USER3> "Balance burst into tears, and took the podium briefly, shouting hysterically "don't you people get it? We don't want to create meaningless drivel!"

Yes, it's satire.

<comment><USER4> But did beta testers and other customers actually say they hated such applications?

Is there any truth to this "satire"?</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter Heron: Stream Processing at Scale - <AUTHOR> http://blog.acolyer.org/2015/06/15/twitter-heron-stream-processing-at-scale

<comment><USER2> "In the evaluation in section 7 of the paper, Heron beats Storm in every single metric."

In every metric except perhaps the most important one for actual users:

Storm is open source, Heron isn't.

Also, the @TwitterOSS account indicated that there are "no plans to open source in the short-term":

[https://twitter.com/TwitterOSS/status/605460461761396736](https://twitter.com/TwitterOSS/status/605460461761396736)

<comment><USER3> The paper contains the motivation: "For our needs at Twitter, we needed a stream processing platform that was open-source, high-performance, scalable, and was compatible with the current Storm API."

I guess 3/4 isn't bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > All the Stream Managers in a topology connect to each other to form an > O(k^2) connection network

shouldn't that be !(k-1)? Or am I missing something about the architecture?

<comment><USER5> Every stream manager is connected to every other stream manager. k managers = k^2 connections.

<comment><USER4> Yea I must be missing something here.

If you have k=2 stream managers you have 1 connection, not 4 . Even if the connections weren't bidirectional you'd have 2 connections.

<comment><USER6> Parent is talking big-O and so is ignoring that it isn't exactly k^2. Depending on how you count (do 2 nodes require 2 connections or 1 bi- directional connection) it's k(k-1).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is the paper online? If someone can produce a standard URL for it, we'll change the link in this post.

<comment><USER8> [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2742788](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2742788)

<comment><USER7> Sorry, I meant the pdf. Is there a url for it that will work for everybody? The one I get when I click "pdf" on that ACM page seems unlikely.

<comment><USER3> SIGMOD 2015 proceedings are open access, meaning the conference has arranged with ACM to provide the content to pretty much everyone.

That being said, the submission is to someone's (Adrian's) interpretation of the work, and is arguably more useful than just linking at the pdf itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now I get it. It's not just "I didn't write this, therefore shit, so I need to rewrite it from scratch." This was a clear explanation in a bite sized chunk which illustrated the reasons for Heron. Thanks.</comment>


A Kindle loaded with e-books is heavier than an empty one - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/a-kindle-loaded-with-e-books-is-heavier-than-an-empty-one-20111028/ <comment><USER2> So does it mean charging an electronic device makes it heavier?</comment>


Did Body Cameras Backfire? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/border-patrol-weighs-body-cameras-face-recognition/600469/ <comment><USER2> Body cameras were never going to fix a broken system because the state security and law enforcement officers are overtly and totally against them (and the logic behind them). So they were always going to do everything in the power to make sure that cameras in general weren't going to have the intended effect.

I don't think any system is going to fix the problems with state security and law enforcement until the legal structure that so many outrageous abuses is reformed.</comment>


Banks can accidentally lose safe deposit boxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/don-t-put-your-valuables-in-the-bank <comment><USER2> What is the solution for this? My personal use is items that should be locked and protected, and I don't really have a place in my house to bolt a fireproof/waterproof safe. Bank safety deposits also have downsides in case of death.

<comment><USER3> > What is the solution for this?

1\. Buy private safe deposit box insurance. I won't link it to avoid impropriety, but easily found via Google.

2\. Have joint ownership, so that death isn't an issue.

3\. Keep all your items in a dry bag if the bank is in a flood-prone area.

4\. Assess the probability of the bank emptying your box (nearly zero) vs a safe in your house being stolen.

5\. Digitally scan irreplaceable original documents, so you at least have a copy.

6\. Print out a high quality document with a fake letterhead of your favorite 3-letter agency, informing the opener that they are committing a federal crime and will be personally liable. Maybe claim that the bag (See #3) is a diplomatic pouch and opening it is an international incident. Or other stern warning. Print a phone number on it to call immediately. Also put a fake gun in the box to give an air of danger. YMMV.

<comment><USER4> Modified #6: a notice that opening the box has sent a signal to a safe deposit box monitoring company. Maybe include a device that starts buzzing as soon as the box is opened.

<comment><USER4> Further idea: to stop the device from buzzing you have to enter a code.

<comment><USER2> oooh, prepaid phone + raspberry pi with battery charger (so you don't have to go to the bank every few days) that sends email when light detected

<comment><USER4> That should work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> they made it the whole article without calling it a SAFETY deposit box. my father would be thrilled.

(its a safe deposit box, not a safety deposit box)

</comment><comment><USER6> Vaults containing boxes can also flood (see Katrina).</comment>


Ask HN: How to engage users? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I built a website to gather (all) online learning resources (ambitious, I know), and over the past few months 2,200 users signed up, but almost nobody participates. I'm sure every user has at least a link to contribute to the website, and I made it easy for people to share their resources.
How do I get my users to engage more ? What advice do you have ? <comment><USER2> This can be a tough one.

I've seen several types of advice. Unfortunately so far I haven't seen an effective one.

\- One would be to put calls to action that would encourage participation. This servers as a nudge and a frame for the type of engagement you want to stimulate.

\- Another would be to ... create fake engagement to show the users that others do it, thus to lead the flock.

Of course, in my experience, neither of those two worked.

\--- related story; can skip it ---

With my team we built a digital marketing advice website on the local web. We take the topics really deep and get controversial on many mainstream topics. Our approach is pretty much unseen in our local market.

Of course, we deliver. The site is on 1st and 2nd places for various keywords on google (this means at times, above wikipedia) and we are even over some local web companies, for keywords for services, that they provide.

Basically we kick ass on local.

YET, people don't comment on our site. So far we have tried few different approaches and none brough definitive result.

And the engagement is high i.e. people read; metrics show people spend time, read, scroll and share. And they share like crazy. We have articles that have almost 1:1 share:read ratio! We rechecked that 12312 times, to be sure that we didn't mess the counters of the share buttons. Not the case. External tools report the same stuff.

And people still don't comment.

It's like a curse. They read, share and do not comment.

So sometimes it is your audience that is tough to engage in specific way. But one must find a way! For his product. For his sanity. For science!

\--- end of story ---

My advice is to lead with some fake engagement and then create some sort for gratification for the people to see that is cool to post links and others like it.

But if you find better advice ignore this one. While I gave it to you I still feel sceptical about it's efficiency.

</comment><comment><USER3> First and foremost you need to familiarize yourself with Dave McClure's Startup metrics: [http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2007/09/startup- metrics....](http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2007/09/startup-metrics.html)

If you then look at your analytics, you will then find that you likely have either an Activation problem or a Retention problem or both. That then tells you the areas of focus in terms of the problem to correct.

Also read: [http://www.socialmediamodels.net/social-media-overview- model...](http://www.socialmediamodels.net/social-media-overview-models- category/the-engagement-pyramid/) [http://www.slideshare.net/startuplessonslearned/eric-ries- en...](http://www.slideshare.net/startuplessonslearned/eric-ries-engagement- loops-the-levers-and-metrics-of-engagement) [http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/12/engagement- loop...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/12/engagement-loops-beyond- viral.html) [http://andreehuk.com/post/67267407194/gradual-engagement- a-g...](http://andreehuk.com/post/67267407194/gradual-engagement-a-growth- hacking-tool-at-your) [http://sixteenventures.com/saas-customer-success-quick- wins](http://sixteenventures.com/saas-customer-success-quick-wins)

</comment><comment><USER4> Customer engagement is an issue that causes sleepless nights to so many entrepreneurs. There is no fullproof way that works for all the customers so the only way out is to conduct a trial of various strategies and then evaluate which works for your customer base.

Here is a New Free WordPress plugin 'ICEGRAM' that helps to solve the issue of Customer Engagement. It provides 4 tools that have proven beneficial for increasing customer activity on a website and they are : Popups, Messengers, Notifications, Header/Footer messages.

I would suggest try them out and see what works best for your audience..

You could have a detailed look at Icegram at [http://www.icegram.com/](http://www.icegram.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Apologies, but I read that as, "How to enrage users?" What a difference a letter makes and probably another good question for Ask HN!</comment>


Announcing AWS Elastic Beanstalk for Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2013/03/11/announcing-aws-elastic-beanstalk-for-node-js/

<comment><USER2> Even though it's relatively primitive compared to some of the other PaaS providers out there, I really like AWS Elastic Beanstalk. Here are some of the reasons why:

        * You only pay for the underlying AWS services
        * ELB + EC2 + RDS is a good stack for a lot of
          web applications
        * They support environments and promoting releases
          from one environment to the other (e.g.
          qa -> production)
        * Git integration

There are a bunch of downsides but it's a cheap MVP for a certain category of database driving webapp for me.

<comment><USER3> What are some of the downsides?

<comment><USER4> You have to use their base AMI. Which was really bad because for a while it suffered from a kernel deadlock on disk write bug(this should be fixed by now). There's very little configuration options - when I was using it you couldn't setup logrotate for instance. It worked pretty well, for java at least, until the server started locking up every couple hours.

When it integrates with opsworks, I'll be excited about it.

<comment><USER5> You can now use configuration files to customize your instance. You can install packages, download files, run shell scripts etc. Works well.

[http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/custom...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/customize- containers.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just added Elastic Beanstalk's dot directory to <http://gitignore.io>

<http://gitignore.io/api/elasticbeanstalk>

<comment><USER7> Thanks, nice application. Love the color scheme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does it support websockets? Pretty important feature for node.js.

<comment><USER9> You need to use TCP forwarding on the ELB, not HTTP. The disadvantages are:

* You cannot enable stickiness on the ELB

* You will not get the client IP forwarded to your instances

<comment><USER10> you do get the client IP, but it comes as a request header: x-forwarded-for [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/Devel...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/TerminologyandKeyConcepts.html#x-forwarded- for)

<comment><USER11> How would that work for a protocol that isn't HTTP?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm working on a meteor application, and one of the things I'm scared of is that no one knows how to make one run on multiple machines.

Would this solve that problem, by providing an essentially infinite sized machine?

<comment><USER13> This is essentially what these PaaS services do. Appfog for example gives you 2GB of ram to deploy your app with for free. You can deploy an app to 8 separate instances with 256MB of ram, or you can adjust it differently. With heroku you get 1 "dyno" for free, and for each additional dyno it's another charge, etc. etc. They do all the work of load balancing and making it "just work"

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Prior to this, Mozilla has been using AWSBox as a similar deploy environment for node.js <https://github.com/mozilla/awsbox>

</comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone know how often they update their containers for other platforms? The maximum node.js version on Beanstalk is 0.8.21, but the current stable is now 0.10.0.

<comment><USER16> Their Python container, which became available last August, has yet to be updated to support version 2.7 (released 2010) or 3.x. This may not be indicative of how often they'll update the node.js container, but their effort to keep up with the latest and greatest doesn't seem too aggressive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How does this compare with Heroku for RoR hosting? Do they compete or is Heroku solving a different problem?

<comment><USER18> IMHO Heroku is way more easy to do deploy and makes it more accessible to non- sysadmins.

        heroku create
        git push heroku master

With Amazon, you need to spend some time understanding how it works and what do you want. It's also not very clear for a beginner to define what kind of bill you will get today, in a month, in a year. I think Amazon is trying very hard but I always end up reading tons of documents and finally not really understand what they means in the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> what is the best node.js PaaS solution out there? This doesn't look as nice as Azure's offering that I've been using. Who do people like the most?

<comment><USER13> There is appfog, heroku, nodejitsu, and a few others. Afaik, nodejitsu is the only one with full websockets support at the moment.

<comment><USER20> dotCloud has full websockets support. Http://dotcloud.com

<comment><USER21> And I am using it...!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Even better: default VPC without extra cost</comment>


Obama Advisers Urge Action Against Bioterror Threat - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602934/obama-advisers-urge-action-against-crispr-bioterror-threat/ <comment><USER2> > If you can get access to the sequence data, that's really all you need.

I call bullshit. It appears they are arguing to restrict access to gene sequencing data. If you have the equipment and knowledge to do CRISPR based gene editing then you can likely also do your own sequencing.

<comment><USER3> I got the impression that's a claim about identifying engineered attacks, rather than about making them easier to perform.

Granted it's been a while since I closely followed the field, but to the best of my knowledge, no one's made significant headway in synthetic organisms since JCVI's initial "hey we invented a prokaryote" splash a few years back. I doubt anyone actually in the field would make a claim to a news organization that access to sequence data would be the highest bar to clear in producing novel engineered pathogens.

On the other hand, also to the best of my knowledge, gene editing techniques leave behind traces which are pretty readily identifiable in sequencing results. So the statement makes a lot more sense in that direction. It's just that the article is poorly edited in a way that produces semantic ambiguity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And the latest fear campaign begins..

I Wonder which small country will be designated as having these WMDs?

<comment><USER5> Sometimes fear is rational, and healthy. Having a respect for a powerful tool is a healthy fear.

The way new technologies behave when introduced into the open, can have profound effects on society. Once the cat's out of the bag, it doesn't go back in.

The serious question here: Is CRISPR as potent and revolutionary as atomic fission?

Biological resources are more accessible to ordinary laymen than, say, plutonium and enriched uranium. So it's probably worth asking that question.

The answer to that question will inform us as to whether this is mass media fear mongering for rating and advertising bumps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The title is very click-baity (CRISPR is just used as an example in the letter and appears 3 times on 19 pages), but the points raised are valid.

It's still not easy to create your own bioweapons using these novel technologies and the field is moving rapidly, so it would be in the best interest of the US and other countries to start having a national biodefense strategy that thinks 'bigger' than the CDC, includes international collaboration on biodefense responses, research, intelligence community input (bioterrorism), disease surveillance etc.

I assume this letter also happened due to the mediocre reaction of the US to Zika defense funding, which such an agency would be better suited to defend against. In fact I think bioterrorism is 'used' here to appeal to the military hawks, the threat of novel 'natural' diseases is still higher IMHO.

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/os...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_biodefense_letter_report_final.pdf)</comment>


Ask HN: Udemy's Complete Web Developer Course – Yes? No? Maybe? - <AUTHOR> My background is writing/editing, then I moved into technical writing, now I want to take the next step and do something creative. I'm not ready to quit my day job to go get another degree. How do Udemy courses stack up to, say, Continuing Ed at a community college? <comment><USER2> If you want to become a Web Developer there are some good resources for free like:

www.coursera.com

www.udacity.com - WebDev with Python

www.theodinproject.com - WebDev with Ruby

www.freecodecamp.com - WebDev with JavaScript

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll check them out -- thanks!</comment></comment>


Apple Used to Be an Inventor. Now It's Mainly a Landlord - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-02/apple-s-business-is-about-services-more-than-new-iphones-now?srnd=premium <comment><USER2> May be people are disappointed with innovation in iPhones compared to previous years' or for the last few years, but every time I use my AirPods, I can't but feel good about the innovation it took to make it as easy to use and comfortable.

* If I open the case near my phone, it automatically pairs and shoes battery levels.

* They sound decent for earbuds (not in-ear plugs which I hate)

* Lasts reasonable amount of time on its battery and quickly charges while in case.

I could not get this experience ever before and honestly, even after I have had it for a year. I don't know of a better competition to it.

But, letting the Mac lineup vanquish with old internals for years and gouging prices on soldered SSDs and memory - no excuse, that's just shitty.

<comment><USER3> I think their biggest innovation is making devices where everything just works. Look no further than any two year old who has been exposed to an iPad to see that their interfaces are super-intuitive. Plus, unlike most manufactures, they control all the hardware _plus_ the software, so they can make sure that the entire experience is seamless.

<comment><USER4> I do agree with this. When I was younger I would happily blow a whole weekend getting my window manager set just so or figuring out how to load load songs onto my Diamond Rio from RedHat. Now I'm middle aged and I'm willing to pay all sorts of $$ to have it just work in a sensible way. And work it does — nothing in android or windows land even comes close. It's surprising how many comments I see here that are completely oblivious to this and insist on trashing apple for being "not free". The market has spoken. Almost no one cares.

<comment><USER5> I have both android and ios devices. Android is far superior for file management. Ios is a joke in that regard. Folders weren't broken but somehow ios managed to break them. Now if I want to save a random file on my ipad I have to choose a directory related to some unrelated app!? Why can't I just create a directory like I do on every other device I own?

<comment><USER6> why are you trying to "manage files"? More control comes at the expense of ease of use (generally) it seems like, if you can't give up one you won't get the other

<comment><USER5> Because I need to reference files quickly on the go and can't risk not being able to access them due to poor/no internet connectivity. I also want to be able to save files that ios doesn't provide a way to save (eg download YouTube) and have now found a third party app that lets me do that. Should be a core part of ios. ITunes is shit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a silly article. How someone could look at Apple's chip developments (A, T, S, W, etc. series of processors) and think they aren't innovative is mind- boggling. Apple developing key silicon in their devices is a major security benefit for their users and I consider that an innovative model.

The Apple ecosystem itself is innovative and I don't think there's a single company that does it better.

They still lead in interfaces (biometrics...FaceID) and multi-touch gestures.

I don't use Siri, but I'm glad they are developing that technology in a way that doesn't flat-out violate the privacy of their users. I just hope all the criticism comparing Siri versus Google Assistant and Cortana don't push them to change that posture.

It feels like Apple hate is becoming a meme. You can certainly criticize the company... their product line is becoming confusing, but to say they "used" to be an innovator is ignorant.

<comment><USER8> > It feels like Apple hate is becoming a meme.

Hasn't it always been, though? This probably comes off as conspiracy- theoretic, but I feel like there's a real financial incentive to keep their stock prices as in-flux as possible to allow for proper buy-in/cash-out gains.

<comment><USER9> I can certainly believe that there are plenty of people that try to manipulate the stock price, but most Apple haters aren't playing the stock market.

By far the most common cause of Apple hate I see is what appears to be consumers who are essentially disgruntled that none of Apple's products are targeted at their own use case: eg. gamers who always decried the Mac Pro because they wanted a cheap traditional desktop, not a workstation; or people who wish Apple was competing in the $500 laptop market, or the 8+lbs mobile workstation or gaming laptop market. A large portion of complaints about Apple hardware being overpriced can be traced back to misunderstandings about what Apple's actually selling and how it differs from the Dell that somebody tries to compare it to. (Of course, there are plenty of things that Apple _does_ over-charge for.)

Next most common are probably the people who despise the "walled garden". They're quite vocal in these parts of the web, but I doubt they outnumber the previous category of Apple detractors.

<comment><USER10> Or people who don't like having to deal with dongles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Two months ago, Apple announced an ECG sensor for your wrist. A year before that, they announced face detection for the purposes of identity with enough accuracy that it can be used for financial transactions. Also, AirPods are incredible. I'm not saying Apple has a monopoly on invention, but to say they 'used to be an inventor'? That's weird.

<comment><USER12> Personally, I find FaceID to be vastly inferior to TouchID for many of my regular use cases.

Perhaps the worst one is that you cannot easily unlock your phone while it lays on a conference room table to see the contents of a message. You need to picking it up and point it at your face. Likewise when using the phone while it is in a stand/holder.

The one and only benefit I found is during the winter, it is easier to unlock the phone with gloves on.

Both of them are terrible for security.

<comment><USER13> I find Face ID to be a vast improvement over Touch ID. It's much faster and less fiddly to unlock the phone than with the old Touch ID. I love that you can activate and unlock the phone just by looking at it. Apple Pay is much faster. And I like that it's smart enough to not dim the screen when you're looking at it, even if you haven't interacted with the device for a while.

<comment><USER14> I find that Face ID is only a mild win over Touch ID in situations where it's better, such as when you're taking the phone out of your pocket in one motion, or when the phone is propped upright and you get more details on a notification.

But in situations where it fails I find that it fails harder and repeatedly, which makes you want to choose a simple password (perhaps that's why Apple tucks away the alphanumeric option). When a phone is laying flat on a desk, you can lean your face over the phone. When your head is on a pillow, you can lift your head off the pillow. When the lighting conditions aren't good, you can just turn on the lights and position the phone at that "magic distance" until it unlocks. But if you don't it'll just fail again and again.

As a minor point, I'm surprised that you prefer to double press while looking at your phone, versus having a fingerprint reader on the back so you can unlock your phone in one gesture of hand toward the payment system.

<comment><USER13> _" When the lighting conditions aren't good"_

Huh? Face ID uses infrared. It doesn't need external light.

You're right about the pillow thing, but the way I see it, if you can't lift your head off a pillow you probably shouldn't be using your phone!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's embarrassing that this doesn't include a massive, bold-faced disclaimer above the headline.

Bloomberg is in the midst of a credibility-destroying fight with Apple over a sensational story that no other journalists can corroborate. Bloomberg has dug in, staking their reputation on Apple being wrong.

Seemingly in response Bloomberg... publishes a hand-wavy piece of cultural criticism about the meaning of Apple doing iterative design?

<comment><USER16> What is embarrassing is believing there's now a conspiracy against Apple because Bloomberg got a scoop and decided to follow through.

Don't worry, Apple can survive some criticism.

<comment><USER17> Your interpretation of the comment you are replying to is far from generous and from what our standard should be.

<comment><USER18> Thanks albedoa for always being there to point out how others misinterpret what different people are really saying.

<comment><USER17> Nobody knows who you are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Do you know what really worries me about Apple now?

So, when SJ came back to Apple, he reorganized their (then at the time) computer lines into more streamlined ones. Something like (I might get some of the names wrong), into consumer/pro and portable/desktop

iBook/Powerbook, iMac/Powermac

Now look at their line now

What the F is an iPhone XR? Is the XS "better" than the X or not? Why are there 2 iPad Pros? Is an iPad 4 better than an iPad? Which one is which?

Not to mention the dongles, USB-C mess, etc

<comment><USER20> A few quick thoughts:

>What the F is an iPhone XR? Is the XS "better" than the X or not?

Somewhat agree about the XR, though I guess the idea is it's one less than an S, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say their "S" naming scheme has been consistent since it was introduced after the iPhone 4.

> Why are there 2 iPad Pros?

Steve once said netbooks were dead, then released a laptop in exactly that form factor (11 in MBA). Clearly there was market demand for it, and I assume their must be demand for both sizes here as well.

> Is an iPad 4 better than an iPad?

Agree here, they've changed this particular convention a lot, but looks like we're settling on Pro and base.

> Not to mention the dongles, USB-C mess, etc

Very much agree here. I really, really hope dongle hell will be a short lived phenomenon and USB-C adoption in peripherals and the rest of the industry picks up. Apple has been right about big bets like this before, so hopefully here too, but right now, it is definitely a mess.

<comment><USER21> > Steve once said netbooks were dead, then released a laptop in exactly that > form factor (11 in MBA). Clearly there was market demand for it, and I > assume their must be demand for both sizes here as well.

Just a point of clarification on netbooks. Netbooks were a flop because they were bulky, slow, hard to type on, had terrible screens, and came with minuscule trackpads.

The air was none of those things, and was the progenitor of a new class of laptop that would be known as "Ultrabooks".

<comment><USER22> Another example was when Steve said 7-inch tablets were "too small" and you'd need to file-down your fingers to use them (not sure what you'd need to operate 3.5-inch iPhones then). He said this while Apple had the 8-inch iPad mini in development.

SJ was a salesman - he'd say untrue things to make his product look good, like trash-talking 5.5-inch phones(!) and saying "no-one wants 'Hummer' phones" while - you guessed it - Apple had larger phones in the pipeline, because the demand was there.

<comment><USER23> The iPad Mini has 4:3 screen ratio, so quite a bit larger and more useful screen than the 7" 16:9 Android tablets

Same with the netbooks, weren't those often 9" 16:9 with terrible Atom CPU and slow HD?

<comment><USER24> It's kind of shitty and deceptive to measure screen size by the diagonal. You could have literally a single row of pixels 15 inches wide; does that mean you have a 15 inch display?

<comment><USER25> How would you recommend we measure screen size? Length x Width I assume is the obvious one, but that's harder to compare. I suppose you could argue comparing diagonals isn't a good benchmark either, but it works well enough when screens tend to have similar aspect ratios, as they mostly do.

<comment><USER24> Square inches is also a single dimension.

<comment><USER25> Ooh, I _really_ like that one! Measuring area makes a lot more sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I like this part:

Apple is milking its essentially captive audience. I hesitate to call it "loyal" — these are, essentially, people who look with trepidation at the idea of moving years of photos and other data to a different system.

My wife gnashed her teeth when she got one of the new, wildly overpriced iPhones — but she just can't imagine switching to Android.

<comment><USER27> The main Android dealbreaker for me is all the viruses, followed by OS fragmentation and finally the fact there is no privacy protection ( i.e. secure enclave )

<comment><USER28> Viruses: doesn't really apply if you just download non shady things from the play store

OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime

Privacy protection: really depends how you feel about Google on this one

Presence of a secure element: this one really depends on your threat profile

<comment><USER29> > OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone > that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime

Can you make a recommendation here? I am an iPhone user who might be inclined to switch to Android, but I still haven't found a phone that would satisfy this criterion. To clarify: "reasonable" for me means ~5 years, as this is how long I expect to keep using the same phone.

<comment><USER30> iPhones already don't get full updates. They get progressively trimmed updates as time goes on. Stock android does a similar thing. If you get a Pixel, you get 2 years of OS updates (my Pixel from 2016 is running the latest Android), at least 3 years of security updates, and many software updates in the meantime (most of Android's functionality can be upgraded without an OS update).

FWIW, phones aren't designed to last 5 years. The batteries aren't, the screens aren't, the casing isn't, and the hardware generally doesn't (newer software = more demanding).

That said, if you do require to use the same device for five years, and need the latest software on it, than Apple is probably your only option.

<comment><USER31> > FWIW, phones aren't designed to last 5 years. The batteries aren't, the > screens aren't, the casing isn't, and the hardware generally doesn't (newer > software = more demanding).

FWIW I'm typing this on a 4 year old iPhone and I expect it to easily last another year. Battery was replaced once. Modern smart phones are complex, expensive, ressource intensive assemblies. Swapping them out every 2 years is crazy (... and yet common, sadly)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not really sure I buy the premise - Apple has never been much of an inventor, instead being more of a "competent executor". It's true that Apple is likely to continue to increase its service offerings, but I don't think that fundamentally changes the nature of the company. Since Apple has historically focused on executing extant ideas well, it's quite possible that we won't see any massive new markets until we know what the next "hot new tech" will be. AR maybe?

<comment><USER33> I disagree, when apple released the iphone, they changed the face of what smart phones would ultimately become. The touch experience they pioneered really shouldn't be overlooked, and add that on to future technologies like the ipad, where both were deeply immersive devices that people were able to generate new and exiting feelings towards.

Since then, apple has migrated from being a brand focused on the shear love of using technology to essentially any other luxury brand (I disagree with the premise that they aren't still inventors in the engineering sense, but they certainly aren't innovating in the way they had prior).

The closest thing we have today would be something like Alexa, where people young and old can be deeply immersed with a new, and further humanizing, piece of technology. Apple certainly had a head start with Siri, but they were never able to keep up and clearly misunderstood what people are getting out of digital assistants with their homepod since it's too much of a luxury sound product rather than something more utilitarian.

<comment><USER32> _they changed the face of what smart phones would ultimately become_

I get that, but they didn't "invent" the smartphone. They executed an existing concept far better than anybody else had been able to up until then, and the result of that was a complete industry change. It's great, but they weren't there when the first smartphones appeared - they came along with a much better implementation of the concept.

I think they'll continue to do this in other markets as they develop.

<comment> dorian-graph This really sounds like people are splitting at hairs doing gymnastics to give Apple as little credit as possible.

What does 'invent' even mean to you, and the others, then?

If Apple didn't do what they did, where would we be?

<comment><USER34> Its really easy to find out this stuff by googling it. There were smart phones back in 1993. Apple's came out years later. That hair is half a decade wide?

<comment> dorian-graph [http://time.com/3137005/first-smartphone-ibm- simon/](http://time.com/3137005/first-smartphone-ibm-simon/)

[http://thedoghousediaries.com/3345](http://thedoghousediaries.com/3345) ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Steve Jobs was, among many other things, both good and bad, an irreplaceable human being. The Apple that created the Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, and iPhone isn't coming back.

That having been said, of the two post-Steve Jobs Apples that we've seen, this one is still pretty damn decent. They aren't killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland, they aren't selling laptops that spontaneously burst into flames like the PowerBook 5300, and they aren't investing in solutions in search of a problem like OpenDoc. They also aren't selling dozens of indistinguishable products that are only distinguishable by arbitrary four-digit product numbers.

<comment><USER35> > killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering > resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland

They bought themselves out of this, of course, by buying NeXT (managed by SJ). But NeXTstep itself could have easily fallen prey to the second system effect. Was it luck or skill that saved it?

Back in 2000, SJ said that Mac OS X would set up Apple "for the next 20 years". It's 18 years later. What's next? I'm an avid Mac user but these days it pretty much just looks like a good implementation of a 1980's Unix workstation. The ways I wish it were improved are not easy to add to the current architecture. When Apple decides that it has run its course, who's going to lead the team to make its successor? There isn't another SJ startup to buy.

Then again, I don't see Microsoft or the various Linux-based groups or even DARPA taking the lead on next-generation operating system design, either. I don't think it's fair to single out Apple. The whole industry has put all its eggs in the basket of "basically a Unix workstation". That was a great design for its day but I wouldn't use it if I were starting from scratch today. Are we going to just keep adding new syscalls and userspace layers for every new idea we have? Is this the endgame for computer science?

<comment><USER36> The GUI and WIMP interfaces were born out of experiments by a small team doing independent research, and future interface innovation is just as likely to come from places like that. Even Apple's multi-touch gestures were largely already thought out by the small company Fingerworks before they acquired them. Though I also don't doubt that there is interesting stuff happening in secret rooms at Apple that we aren't privy to.

I'd still look at projects like Dynamicland [1], or to scifi: the form factor for the iPad appeared in _ST:TNG_ 20 years before it did on shelves[2], many AR researchers reference Vernor Vinge's _Rainbow 's End_.

[1] [http://dynamicland.org/](http://dynamicland.org/)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Apple used to be a slave to the gods of productivity. Now it's living its best life using the 4 hour work week strategy!

<comment><USER38> Just riffing on that metaphor, which is true in a lot of ways, Apple could really, _really_ benefit the world by publishing "Apple standards for business" or something similar, a reference point for other corporations who will frankly never be Apple, but could at least kick things up a notch in terms of overall professionalism and impact.

A few very successful corporations have come to the point where they are practically worshiped and almost universally admired, but we are not getting all the cultural benefit from them that we can. That needs to be part of the deal--we give you our markets and cultural attention, you return to us your cultural technology in a more concrete form, at the very least by publishing standards that can be applied to other human organizations. This will help us accelerate human cultural evolution and we'll all benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wish I could say Android was different. Yea, Google and Samsung et. al. do make a lot of other products, so their entire business model isn't the same as Apple. But in the phone market, customers don't have all that much choice regardless of who they pick. I'm an Apple hater myself, but I fear the day Apple finally goes away.

</comment><comment><USER40> My particular pain point here is Apple music. I've got gigabytes of music that I've curated over the years, and had on iPods, then on my iPad. But Music has gone from a library first approach to a store first approach, it is getting pretty difficult to keep a set of tunes physically on your device. That makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER41> Pretty amusing to read this on _Bloomberg_ of all places. Practically the definition of innovator turned rent-seeker. One of the most entrenched incumbents in technology.

</comment><comment><USER42> I thought this was interesting. Although its charging for services, it fits in apples slightly more privacy focused business model.

"Rent extraction from a user base that finds it hard to go away may sound a bit like extortion. But it's more honest and upfront than extracting data from users in ways they often don't understand and then making money off the data, as Facebook does. That honesty is in itself a competitive advantage for Apple as it gradually reimagines itself as more of a services company."

</comment><comment><USER43> I think people in the mainstream media and even most people period just don't understand innovation cycles. They expect novelty every year, but they don't realize that revolutions are created by consistently great evolution over a long period of time.

We're nearing the top of the S curve with regards to the smartphone business. Upgrade cycles are getting longer. Phones are getting as powerful as laptops and people are finding them good enough for most things, for longer periods of time.

You can't expect the same level of novelty and change every single year. This headline also under-appreciates just how much the world has changed in the past 10 years because of the smartphone. Everything is wildly different and even as I type this, it's really hard to have perspective about just how significant the changes have been especially since we experience them incrementally. 10 years isn't even that long of a time period.

It's all about the ecosystem and services now. Companies are investing deeply into integrated bundles of services and ecosystem add-ons (HomePod, Watch, Apple Music, iCloud etc) with the smartphone sitting at the center tying everything together.

Each piece might not be the iPhone in terms of size, but that's unrealistic. The iPhone is probably one of the greatest single business lines of all time. That type of step function product doesn't come along every year let alone every decade.

It's not about any single product anymore. It's about integrating technology deep into your life with the smartphone at the center (or in Amazon's case, Alexa since they missed the Smartphone era).

Ecosystems are inventions in their own. How they grow matter. What values they espouse matter. Focusing on the individual parts instead of how the pieces tie together to make a powerful whole is missing the forest for the trees.

Apple also isn't the same company they were in 2007. Just look at the iPhone install base growth: [https://www.valuewalk.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Screens...](https://www.valuewalk.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Screenshot_3-4.png)

That's just iPhone. If you count all iOS devices (iPad, iPod Touch, etc), they're _well over_ a billion users globally. They serve more customers, in more countries, with more preferences than ever before in the company's history. If you're expecting the company to move the same way they did when they were barely international and had a tiny fraction of the operations and customers they have today, then that's also unrealistic.

Look at complex multinational products like Apple Pay and how difficult it is for _anyone_ to deliver a service like that seamlessly in every country in the world (even Apple hasn't launched it everywhere). Services like that require multi-year planning, complex dealmaking, geopolitical factors, operational risk, complex financial operations, etc. Things like Apple Pay are severely under-appreciated because it doesn't make for a good headline and it doesn't make for a fun product review on The Verge or YouTube.

If Apple can make iPhone your only wallet and convince banking partners and retailer around the world to accept Apple Pay AND do it in a way that respects the privacy of every transaction. THAT is innovation. THAT is magical. But that is also hard to appreciate and it will happen incrementally over the years. We'll take it for granted, move on, and demand more.

As Bezos said in his previous shareholder letter: "Customers are divinely discontent"

<comment><USER44> I think we may soon be entering a post smart phone era but the replacements just aren't ready yet.

I had hopes that the Apple Watch 4 would be the iPhone 3g moment, but it's not enough faster, smaller, or long running to make that logical leap.

For instance, if I could make calls from my watch and have an iPad mini 5 without also carrying a phone around with me, I might be tempted by that. But neither the hardware nor wireless plans are there for that. Yet.

<comment><USER45> The apple watch 3 was probably the 3g moment. It's the best selling watch in the world. They're probably mostly limited by the requirement of owning an iphone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> You could say the same or similar things about other companies with similar business models today who rose to prominence because of repeated innovation yet have since become seemingly stagnant: Google, Valve, ...

<comment><USER47> I wouldn't say Google is stagnant... Apple users can thank them for forcing Apple to make their phone OS better (and vice-versa with regard to hardware).

Google's problem isn't innovation, it's supporting and following-through on their innovations past the honeymoon period.

<comment><USER46> They keep making new messaging apps that compete with each other instead of providing users with one great messaging app. Gmail's getting objectively crappier and they're killing off the much better Inbox interface. I'm not saying they make unilaterally bad decisions and I'm decently happy with my cheap Android phone but ten years ago Google was making new and exciting stuff and I haven't felt that way about them in years.

<comment><USER48> Google is also milking their moat. Look at the 10x price increase for using map APIs in the middle of this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This partially explains why Berkshire Hathaway is now largest stock holder in Apple. They prefer companies with 'moat'. Ability to innovate is unpredictable.

<comment><USER50> Of course they do. Moats are great for investors. Not so great for consumers.

<comment><USER51> Depends on the company. Moats extract additional value from customers. I think Google, Apple, and Amazon are all examples of companies that use that extra value to invest in innovation (benefitting customers in the end). Comcast is a great example of a company that doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I've learned that some of Bloomberg's journalism is bullshit, and this article helps me stand by my opinion.

FaceID? ECG monitor? AirPods and the general continuity between Apple products? Seems like Bloomberg is just an attention whore. I can see an argument for the Apple customer market becoming saturated, but Apple has not lost its inventiveness.

The idea of becoming a landlord who is unable to bring in new people with exciting technology is only true if you consider

</comment><comment><USER53> Meanwhile geeks are marvelling at the speed improvements of their latest SoC's over the previous generation and over their competitors.

<comment><USER54> [https://liliputing.com/2018/11/qualcomm- snapdragon-8150-appl...](https://liliputing.com/2018/11/qualcomm- snapdragon-8150-apple-a12x-bionic-benchmarks-leaked.html)

<comment><USER55> Tinfoil hat theory: Is apple holding back their x86 offerings so that their in-house arm processors can catch up performance wise? Perhaps in preparation for an all-arm line up?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This is completely unfair! It is not that the pace of innovation at Apple has slowed down, it is that the success of their innovative products is dwarfed by their legacy business. The Apple watch would be a game changer in terms of revenue for Apple circa 2003 (when it was presumably innovative). It is still an excellent and innovative product, like AirPods.

</comment><comment><USER57> Apple always seemed to have had four things going for them; Product Innovation, Developing extremely high-quality HW and SW with attention to both details and user experience, a world-class supply chain and finally a technological edge.

I would argue that under Steve Jobs both the supply chain and the technological edge had some focus but there wasn't a huge gap with the competition, This could be either because it required time to achieve this gap and Steve simply wasn't at the helm for that long or it wasn't his main focus and is currently the focus of Tim Cook considering his background, either way, I think Apple is currently and going to continue to blow everyone out of the water with technologies like their SOC's and will continue having the most efficient supply chain and manufacturing capacity in the world churning out products that beat the industry margins by a mile.

Regarding the quality, design and user experience it mostly stagnated, don't get me wrong they're still way higher than the industry average and I can see Johnny Ives touch in most of their products, but I don't see the kind of passion that went into designing the interface of a device like the iPhone with ideas like pinch to zoom and the spring effect. Apple seems to have a design team that is world class but uninspired and just doing their job.

Now the most important point and this is what I honestly believe is the problem with Apple is the Product Innovation, this appears to have completely stopped after Steve, I try not to believe that Steve Jobs was THE product manager at Apple and avoid the cult of personality, but it's very hard to shake this idea when during his tenure they've released multiple industry- changing products, and they've failed to release a single one after he left.

I think Apple is going to continue to release high-quality, well designed, cutting edge and high margin products, but I highly doubt with the current leadership they'll be able to release a single new product that changes the status quo like Steve used to.

</comment><comment><USER58> Yeah, the kind of landlord that designs its own CPUs, GPUs and co-processors, has its own language (Swift), solves several difficult engineering problems with every new product, and so on.

Meanwhile, since I was watching Apple in 2000-2007, when they "used to be an inventor", they used to put out barely incremental updated for the iPod, the OS, and Mac laptops every year.

People would circulate rumors for months, and then cheer, for tiny generational spec updates on iPods. Now we get 10x the technological change we got every year of that era between iPhone models, and people are blaze about it.

Also, Google aside (and them only on the software assistant side) who solves any interesting consumer problems in the space Apple works?

</comment><comment><USER59> Its sad state of affairs that companies are tying and locking down their hardware to specific software:

You cant modify the new Xboxes or Playstations.

Some Android phones are dependant on the manufacturers customised version of the AOSP.

On Macs it is not easy to install another operating system, like you can do with a PC (although I have managed to get Ubuntu 18.10 running on my Macbook Pro 13,1)

Consumers are going to be really challenged at some point and think, "hey, I have very little control over this thing I bought. Am I ok with this or am I going to start hacking?"

We could see another renaissance like you had in the early 80s with hackers sharing and porting software onto the weird and wonderful computers they were building back then.... who knows?

<comment><USER60> Sorry, I think consumers are perfectly fine with severe limitations of control over their hardware. The percentage of hacked consumer electronics is slim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Why don't we all steer towards the IBM PC clone model, but for smartphones? Why do we have free/open Linux on PCs and not on phones?

By the way, ironically, with its single user OS, an iPhone is more a "Personal Computer" than most PCs.

<comment><USER24> > Why don't we all steer towards the IBM PC clone model, but for smartphones?

Isn't that Android?

<comment><USER62> What makes Android, Android to everyone outside of China is the proprietary Google Play Services and all of Google's first party apps.

<comment><USER24> And what made an IBM-compatible an IBM-compatible was the proprietary Microsoft DOS and Windows operating systems.

<comment><USER62> And neither were ever considered "open" unlike the legendary tweet of by Rubin...

[https://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?s=21](https://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?s=21)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Sounds like a good description of Valve after Steam too. Used to focus on products and invent new series, now mostly cashes in on services and microtransactions relating to its older works.

Wonder if this is a trend, especially for larger companies.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is partly the reason why Berkshire Hathaway is now the largest owner of Apple stock. They believe that Apple has a 'moat' they can use to defend their position. It think they are correct.

What can always happen is that they fail to see change coming and drop the ball like Nokia did. They had incredible moat in multiple areas: manufacturing, supply chain, technology and scale. They were able to produce high quality phones with the same cost as cheap brands and pocketed the difference in profits but they didn't see the revolution coming.

The future of Apple's growth is pivot to services and rent from platform.

</comment><comment><USER64> Apples product line is not understandable anymore, it used to be simple but now there are too many dubious options and weird branding.

Even Microsoft's Surface line (which is a similar mess) is easier to comprehend now.

<comment><USER65> Complexity in the names of devices has nothing to do with those devices being innovative, or Apple being inventive.

And from sales numbers, clearly the naming of the new iPhone lineup hasn't deterred people from looking at apple.com and figuring out what device suits their needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The most unfortunate part for me is that Apple's service apps like Apple Music are pretty awful to use. Their stock Music app on iOS takes far too many taps to do anything, is buggy, and overall not a great experience.

The same is true on my MacBook, the only way for me to use Apple Music is through iTunes, a complete dumpster fire of an app on OSX. Apple Music is an otherwise fantastic service, but it is hobbled by terrible UX.

<comment><USER36> It had a difficult version 1, but having been a subscriber to Rdio, Deezer, Spotify, and Apple Music. While they all have areas where they could improve, I prefer Apple Music to all of them from a UX perspective (especially in how it handles music that you upload to your library). I think a lot of it comes down to different UX being more or less appropriate to the way a person consumes and conceptualizes music.

<comment><USER66> Difficult V1 is a generous way to put it, it was a mess, and I agree Apple Music has since improved on iOS. I came in from Spotify and moved to AM family plan, and while I found Spotify a little better in terms of UX, I wanted better integration into my device ecosystem.

I understand that not all apps can be perfect for everyone, but I find the latest iOS app overall very regressed from the previous ones. For example, from a fresh start (as it often happens due to iOS nuking apps in the background) _none_ of the tabs are cached whatsoever, so I have to wait for them to load every single time. Music.app has a completely different feel than other iOS system apps I use frequently, like Photos for example: All tabs are loaded upon start, and importantly, it remembers _which_ tab I was last in, even from a cold start. I discover a lot of new music via the Radio tab, and I almost always find myself waiting for it to load. Often times when dealing with a bluetooth disconnect I have to go into system bluetooth settings to reconnect because for whatever reason, they won't be in the audio output menu in the Music app.

This may seem like a rant, but I use their music service hours every day on my way to and from work, and while working. It's the little details that made me like Apple's ecosystem in the first place, and that seems to be missing lately.

I'm not even talking about the mess that is iTunes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> What's the point here?

\- There were mp3 files and player long before the first iPod

\- Before the iPhone there were other smartphones

\- Before the iPad there were other tablets

\- Don't get me started on the Watch...

Apple was _never_ an Inventor. Everything they've ever created was built around a technology or even products that existed before. Apple "just" gets the user experience right and and builds products that most people find accessible, easy to use, and reliable.

<comment><USER68> I'll give you the watch but the iPod isn't an mp3 player, the iPhone isn't a smartphone, and the iPad isn't a tablet.

The iPod is THE mp3 player, the iPhone is THE smartphone, and to a lesser extent the iPad is THE tablet.

No, Apple didn't invent the concepts but they created the definitive product using those concepts.

<comment><USER69> Multi-touch input was an Apple invention, and it enabled the iPhone and the iPad.

<comment><USER68> I think you'll find this isn't true. Invented in the 70s and in-use as early as 1985. But just like everything else, Apple _was_ the game-changing commercial implementation of it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi- touch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch)

<comment><USER69> Yes multi-touch used in the context of a smartphone, I should have said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> People keep complaining that Apple isn't bringing the next iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch level innovation, but honestly no one is pushing them so why should they? As far as moving markets they've done enough to coast a bit. Noone is complaining that companies like Ford and Toyota are "just making new cars instead og innovativt"

<comment><USER34> Poor examples - Ford reinvented itself recently, dropped sedans entirely from its product line, doubled down on trucks. Toyota brought its hybrid power train to Camry and Lexus product lines. They're innovating all the time.

<comment><USER70> Innovating by making new cars. Just like Apple is innovating by making new iPhones new laptops and new iPads. Have you seen the new iPad Pro? It's a beast that almost deserves a new catagory all for itself. Yet people say Apple has stopped innovating because it's "just another iPad" which is my point exactly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Yeah, that's a click-baity headline; but they're not wrong. There's a shift from the "line up at dawn for the new Apple Dingus" to an arguably more stable "tic-toc" upgrade cycle, with hopefully some Apple Music and iCloud subscriptions thrown in. That's where I'm at right now. Both of us are still on iPhone 6s. I have an iPad from last year that I expect to last a few more. Hers is the generation prior, and will get replaced when iOS no longer supports it (or I upgrade). Newest Mac is from 2012. Now, part of it is "good enough". The new phones aren't so outstanding as to warrant an upgrade, the 6s does the jobs we need just fine. Part of it is "there's nothing to buy"; see: laptops. But Apple still gets money for Apple Music, iCloud, and whatever we get off iTunes.

But as for the click-bait headline, we both just bought our first Apple Watches, the Series 4. Strap one of those puppies on your wrist for a day and talk to me about "used to be an inventor". (Side note: AAPL might not have sold us phones for a while, but they _did_ "invent" a watch that we'd buy. They still got our hardware money.)

<comment><USER72> If it's not too off topic, what is it about the watch that you like so much? I've still got my iPhone 6 and was nodding my head in agreement until you got to the watch part, so just curious, what makes it a compelling product for you?

<comment><USER71> Background: Pebble user since the original Kickstarter, had several of those. I've been using Garmin products for ages for running and cycling. Briefly flirted with the original Samsung Gear band (what a POS _that_ was). Went to a Garmin Fenix 3 HR when they got iOS notifications, thus combining high-quality fitness watch with sorta-smartwatch. In short, I'm sold on smartwatches, and do endurance sports.

Objectives: notifications so the phone can stay in bag/pocket. The more "phone stays in pocket" features, the better. Must function as a standalone fitness device (IOW, must have GPS; syncing later is an expected compromise).

Series 4 is finally the perfect storm to get me to buy one. The first ones had no GPS or water resistance. I'm not paying that much if I still have to keep a Garmin around. Series 3 added LTE. Ah, now I can go for a long run in the woods and leave my phone at home. But I'd laid out big bucks for a Fenix 3, and meh, nothing about the 3 really grabbed me, and by then I was used to ignoring the Apple Watch. But with the 4, it looks like Apple decided to make the fitness aspects stop sucking. IOW, maybe I could use this as a running watch, too. As a person who has Wolfe-Parkinson (heart condition fixed with ablation), the ECG piqued my interest. Now, doc said I'm fixed, so ECG _shouldn 't_ be an important feature. But it got me thinking, which led to talking to the wife, which led to "well, why don't you just buy one, then?".

"Well, maybe I just will."

"Buy me one, too. Silver aluminum with nylon band."

"Yes, dear."

We've not had them but a week, but I'm more impressed than I expected to be. (I mean, I'm _really_ impressed, but I don't want to drip fanboi on anyone, so I'll tone it down.) The stock workout app would do just fine for most folks. If you're not most folks, WorkOutdoors has been impressive the few times I've used it, and there's RunKeeper and the like. We used the LTE functionality first day we ran with them to co-ordinate (we run separately, with dogs). The screen, OMG, it's head-and-shoulders better than my Fenix. Raise-to-wake is reliably better than the Garmin (you'll need raise-to-turn-on-backlight for the Garmin in anything but outdoor sunlight or a bright room). It's gettin' dark here in the PNW, and for my old eyes the Apple OLED is easier to read on a dark run than the Garmin backlight reflective.

As far as the "smartwatch" part, I'll just summarize and say that IMO it's the best smartwatch going right now. YMMV, or maybe that's not even all that important. Of the functionality the Garmin replicates, the Apple version is just much more refined. As one example, if there's a notification on the Garmin, better hurry and look before it goes away. Apple waits until you raise your wrist to look at it before the timer starts.

The Garmin will stick around in the rotation. Even as a close-to-three-hours marathon runner, I wouldn't trust the Apple battery to go the distance, let alone anything longer. If I'm knocking around on wooded trails, the Garmin will probably take a hit better than the exposed glass on an Apple. IOW, serious outdoor work. But I'm not as adventurous as I used to be, so for everyday-carry I'm really enjoying Apple's offering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> This morning I watched two non-technical Apple users be amazed by something automatic - WiFi credential sharing.

User 1 wanted to connect her MacBook Pro to the Wifi. User 2 picked up her phone and was prompted to share her WiFi credentials with the MacBook - it was almost like magic and it worked.

</comment><comment><USER74> How utterly embarrassing for Bloomberg. My respect for them has plummeted recently.

</comment><comment><USER75> My issue with Apple is they continue to hold product launch events as if they've invented a new class of product(s), when they are incremental changes at best (with the exception of the ECG on the Apple Watch.) With the resources Apple has, they should be taking more risks. Tim has basically turned Apple into a boring incremental product company...like a traditional car company. New model year, this model is the best we've ever made...sure, fine but don't pretend that you've created something groundbreaking at every launch event.

</comment><comment><USER76> Eh... I mean Google's entire business model is to essentially rent you out services in exchange for your personal information.

Also, I contend that Apple's "invention" has been to repackage computing in a premium package. Smart phones, music players, tablets all existed before Steve flashed them on stage, he just made you want to use them by making them sexy and cool, which wasn't that hard, because the early days of computing is about as unsexy as it gets.

<comment><USER77> I don't think something like the iphone specifically existed before its debut, but I could be wrong.

<comment><USER78> Which characteristics do you consider distinctive? I think of capacitive touch with no keyboard, but such phones did exist. Costs for those kinds of screens had been coming down before the iphone launched. It was obvious we'd see more capacitive screen phones before the iphone launch, though Apple certainly accelerated it.

<comment><USER79> Gesture UI (the audience literally gasped when Steve scrolled through a long list by flinging it, and applauded pinch-to-zoom), and actually using best of class components (except the camera).

All the other smartphones then were laggy/poor screen/plastic shells/etc. Their UIs stunk. It was a huge step up with a bunch of key incremental innovations in a single package.

<comment><USER69> Exactly. And he said Apple was five years ahead of everyone else, and I think he was right, or it may have even been an understatement, because trying out competing phones years afterward, they were still more clunky than any iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I look at Tesla as the next Apple. There's not much room for fast innovation in the smart phone space, but cars are outdated, and self driving / electric cars with better robotic manufacturing methods give an opportunity for new entrants to appear. It's too late for Apple though at this point to manufacture the full hardware (and also behind Waymo in self driving software).

<comment><USER81> Self driving cars are a way to fleece investors for 5 or 10 more years until everyone realizes it just isn't happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Is this article the payback for Cook asking the Bloomberg to retract that Supermicro story?

<comment><USER69> Maybe, but weak-ass payback since it's so obviously dead wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Admittedly I'm not even going to read the article to see if the headline is just clickbait. The premise is absurd. Apple still sets the bar for innovation. The fact that it is also incredibly good at monetizing its efforts does not take away from that fact.

<comment><USER84> You should read it, it's more about how everyone has a phone already, and there are fewer must have improvements to drive new sales, so revenue growth is coming mostly from services instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Just like McDonalds... [http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds- beyo...](http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds-beyond-the- burger/)

<comment><USER86> The article didn't mean landlord in the older, literal sense of making money off of leasing land, but in the more modern, figurative sense of taking a cut of products and services provided through their platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Apple has botched the Mac lineup and is becoming anti-consumer. I've been a Mac users since the 80's and this is a very different Apple today.

</comment><comment><USER88> This draws parallels to Valve, for me.

</comment><comment><USER89> Same narrative since Jobs died. And yet, their stock keeps skyrocketing.

</comment><comment><USER90> Steve Jobs was Apple's inventor. They've been trying to emulate him since his passing, which is showing obviously to not be the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER91> Apple died with Steve Jobs. No new products just same shit with double and triple price. Shrinking customer base due to overpricing is the death of any company and utter betrayal of Jobs vision.

</comment><comment><USER92> From the comments I see a lot of people are confused by the headline. Apple still invents, but only for the sake of improving existing products, and not really in a way that makes you imagine what you can do, thus it's not the type of invention that matters.

There, I said it.

I made the mistake of buying a Macbook with a touch bar because I thought it was kind of cool when I finally got to see it in person. The novelty that came from this cheap gimmick wore off in a matter of minutes, even though the technical obstacles that had to be overcome must've been great.

The face-tracking cameras in the latest iPhones and iPads? Impressive on their own, but Apple has failed to do anything really fascinating with them besides using them to unlock your device or to puppet an emoji.

Apple invents only for the sake of creating additional cheap gimmicks without creating genuinely exciting products. As I fumble with the awful keyboard on my Macbook I question just how capable they are of even creating quality products.

</comment><comment><USER93> What has Apple invented? As far as I'm aware, they have patents of re- purposing other inventions, or design patents. But cannot think of anything they "invented" that didn't already exist before.

<comment><USER94> They were the first to mass market capacitive touch/multitouch. I believe they acquired many of the underlying technologies, but so far as I know, they were the first to ship a multitouch user interface with a capacitive touchscreen.

<comment><USER95> Multitouch was an Apple invention. [http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1036701/US7479949.pdf](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1036701/US7479949.pdf)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are you using for managing reference data in your app? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN, In almost every company I have ever worked in, we had some in-house solution for managing so-called dictionaries/parameters/reference-data. If you still wonder what I am talking about: assume you would have some data that normally you would put in an enum, but it would have to be dynamic and business people would need to have control over it, what would you use? Admin panel would be probably the first choice, but sometimes there are not enough resources or budgets to do so. Feature toggles are the closest thing that comes to my mind when I think about the potential product, but its use case is somewhat different (lack of queries, versioning, it is not suited to have lots of data). I have decided with my friends that we could deliver a solution to this problem, but I wonder if this is something that you would use or maybe you already using some solution that solves this problem? <comment><USER2> I've been in software for 20 years and can't figure out what use case you're talking about.

Can you explain or give more concrete examples?

If you want to sell a product to people who don't have time to build an admin panel, that's a market without much time or money -- both of the things they need to research your product, test it, and integrate it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's say you have a platform where you can define excel-like tables (parameters), each change to this table creates a new version. Assume that after creating this parameter new version is created with generated rest endpoint to it. e.g.

/param/currencies/version/1

could give you

{ data: [ EUR, USD, SEK, GBP ] }

Use cases: \- You have in your app map with store locations. Adding or deleting these locations would require some kind of UI or access to DB, you could create param and fetch this data from there

\- There are discounts feature in your app, you could define a parameter with discounts for each product, and non-technical people could easily change its values without developers assistance

\- You can create whitelists, blacklists, addresses, descriptions almost anything that changes and non-technical should have the possibility to configure/change.

Of course, creating parameters and managing them would be done through simple UI.

The only thing the developer has to do is to integrate the feature with rest API

Let me know what you think. I am really interested in knowing your point of view and if this is something that you could find useful.</comment></comment>


Startup I work at just pivoted towards an idea I am designing in my spare time. - <AUTHOR>

The previous model for this start-up I am working at just went belly up and now they are considering pivoting towards something I am working on designing in my spare time. How does this affect the non-compete and non-disclosure stuff I signed with this company previously? <comment><USER2> How drastic was this pivot? I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect your position is going to look worse the less the company had to pivot to "scoop" this idea. Regardless of how close they were to your hobby before the switch, I think that if you haven't made your hobby known already you need to do so now. After all, your hobby experience might pay off in a big way if they know about it, and there doesn't seem to be much down side to telling them in the interest of not violating a non-compete.

<comment><AUTHOR> They were a news aggregator before, and now they want to get into blogging with the same model I was designing in my spare. So, in other words, a completely different market.

<comment><USER3> Did they know about your blogging side project before deciding on the pivot? Did you talk about the concept at work?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps you can be honest with them, and work out a deal where they can buy the rights to everything you have done so far.

If your company has shifted focus to something you are already familiar with, they should have an advantage in working with you even more.

<comment><AUTHOR> I mentioned it when the idea was brought up, but nobody really said anything.

<comment><USER5> This is my opinion only, and I'm not a lawyer.

I read that as the management didn't think of you highly enough, or that they don't think you could pull it off or that what you did is significant enough. They may also have no incentive to dilute their shares for a workable solution by their existing employees (NIH?). Anyway to look at it, it is bad.

In other comments others mentioned non-compete. At least in California non- compete is pretty much unenforcible, but IP right protection is. During your employment they do have IP rights to inventions you made unless (a) they are not in the same field or (b) you have disclosed it as prior invention per a typical employment agreement. Now that since (a) no longer applies, you better make sure you notify them and file a formal amendment to your employment agreement that whatever you worked on is considered prior invention. Or else from now on they may claim the right to not just what you're about to do, but also the hard work you've done. This is serious stuff. People and companies had been destroyed by like this. Either way, I think you can no longer continue your moonlight path on this very subject under their employment (unless you get them to put an exception clause to your employment contract, but I doubt they'll entertain that). I hope you work out something with them so they use your stuff and reward you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners they found that the non- compete clause was so broad as to keep the employee from finding reasonable work, so it was thrown out. In this case, you signed the non-compete agreement while your company was performing A, now they want to perform B which is something you do on the side. My guess would be that in order to enforce B they would need you to sign a whole new NCA. I would check with a lawyer though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Make sure you follow everything in this article, and get something signed by them: <http://blog.asmartbear.com/working-startup.html></comment>


Stonehenge may have been first erected in Wales, evidence suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/stonehenge-first-erected-in-wales-secondhand-monument <comment><USER2> "Secondhenge"

<comment><USER3> "Sttwohenge"</comment></comment>