iOS 6 App Store is a disaster for developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.develop-online.net/news/42065/The-iOS-6-App-Store-is-a-disaster-for-developers <comment><USER2> One of my main problems with the store is that the single card view doesn't even work well. Perhaps it's because I'm on an iPhone 4, but the loading time that comes with this new configuration absolutely destroys the experience for anyone wanting to find anything. Perhaps when we all have gigabit connections on our phones this card view will reign supreme, but until that point it's a completely short sighted attempt at improvement.

Btw, I also speak as a developer who has had their sales slashed enormously due the concert of changes that started in late July. My main title has sold at least a handful of copies @ 2.99 a day for the past two years; that was until the store started to limit the amount of queries a user would get from their search. We have a very sexy icon, and very unique concept for the game. I actually thought the high rate of piracy at the beginning of the app's life was the reason for the continued sales, but after the changes started to take place; sales are now limited to about 1-2 a week, I know it was because of the app icon and screen shots.

Anyway, I mostly speak here as a user, and this new App Store has not been welcomed. I miss Steve.

<comment><USER3> I also use iPhone 4, but I'm glad the changes are here.

First - it's been years since the "new releases" view benefitted the developers. Currently, with the amount of new apps for iPhone, the devs get quickly buried on that list, and the launch benefit is minimal.

As for the single card view... It's not perfect, because you need to do more scrolling, but on the other hand - you no longer have to decide which app to pick based solely on the icon & name. Say you're looking for a weight tracker app. You can now quickly preview a couple of apps, and pick the one you like the most. In the past you'd have to tap every single one of them - nobody did that.

The new App Store, if anything, gives more opportunities to the small guy. There are now new ways to get discovered, and there is more emphasis on search. That's great.

Rules changed, and people complain. Some people just don't like changes imho.

<comment><USER4> "In the past you'd have to tap every single one of them - nobody did that."

Sure they did. On their first search for a topic at least. And it wasn't painful. It was nice and quick.

The thing about search is, we go back and search for the same thing many times, usually to find apps related to our areas of interest, and Apple seems to have completely neglected this notion.

They seem to think that our search is ALWAYS to find something "new".

I would search for "platformers" and "platform games" about once every week or two. I KNEW the ones I had checked out previously. I wouldn't click them again, but it was 2 quick swipes to see what's new. Job done. This is now dead. When I search, I have to look at the same stuff, and have to flip slowly through each and every app I've already decided I don't want to download, again, and again, and again. And THIS is something I won't do. Hence, "discovery" is dead.

Now, from a smaller developer's perspective, as I have apps in this store...

Discovery was critical. Search and the "New" section were important to me.

The release-date section under each category was CRITICAL to getting those first downloads.

On day 1, with nothing more than a tweet to a handful of followers, my app would see a significant number of first-time downloads from being in this section. It got the ball rolling.

Here's my idea/wish:

App stores should have an "Introductions" category, and when we submit our apps, we should be able to write a description of our app just for this purpose. We get 1 day in the "Introductions" category, and after that, we're gone. People can feel free to go to this category at any time to see everything that has been released, so they get to see new stuff, and developers get an opportunity to get some initial users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How has anyone ever sold a product before? You market it.

The App Store isn't the sole place you should be marketing your app. If you have _ever_ counted on just releasing your app into the store and have it somehow gain traction with no other effort, you've always been doomed to failure.

The App Store should be treated like a supermarket, after a fashion. You may get your product on the shelf, but simply relying on people walking by and seeing it is a terrible way to get people to try it. It always takes outside marketing to get people to look for your product or learn about it.

So you already have put a lot of work into making your application. Now go do some more legwork and get people talking about it.

<comment><USER6> Heres the problem with marketing: Say, I am a really big software company and release an app for my biggest video hosting platform anyone knows: "youtube". Everyone knows the exact name of the application, goes to the store, enters "youtube". And guess whats first? Not "Youtube", but "Video Downloader Super Lite".

What use is good marketing if it is so hard to find things by _exact name_ on the store where you market it for? That basically means that any competitor can beat you by just including terms for your product in his description. The card interface makes this even worse, because with the old interface, "Youtube" would at least be on the front page, but now it is not.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure if they changed anything, but Youtube has been the first search result for me since I upgraded my iPhone. It's not in the search results for the iPad since Google hasn't released Youtube for the iPad yet (or at least last time I searched).

I wonder if there's saved state in the app store that's modifying the search results.

<comment><USER6> It could also depend on which app store you are in, I am not from the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the problem goes far deeper than this. Apple has never had good search and discovery technology across it's products. Searching using iTunes on the desktop isn't any better. I won't get into the details. I'm sure a lot of you share my sentiments.

In many ways it is a parallel with Maps. Google has great search and great maps. Apple has bad search and now less-than-stellar maps. Trend?

<comment><USER9> itunes searching for apps works so much better than google play searching for apps. Google play search is an embarrassing joke.

Searching for USA travel guides brings in french travel guides, spanish travel guides, and london maps.

<comment><USER10> Honestly I find it easier to go to Google.com and search for whatever your looking for appended with "android app". I'm surprised there's such a large difference in the quality of search between Google Play search and Google Search.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely.

I have no idea why they haven't replaced whatever they're doing with: <search> site:play.google.com

Then they would just need to resolve apps the way the Play Store already does when presented with a URL and tack on any appropriate filtering (country- level, carrier-level. etc.). This has been a problem for a long time (my standard suggestion used to include "site:market.android.com"). And Google has done a lot with the Play Store app in the interim, so there must be some constraint I'm missing. I just can't see what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple is a company that doesn't make very many acquisitions. I think that the team at Chomp pretty much took over the App Store or at least have a very big say.

All the changes are worse for indie developers.

The changes also favor raw app download count. This means that free or freemium apps rank higher. This isn't good for quality apps which are paid purchases but have fewer downloads compared to a mediocre quality but free app.

I want things back the way they were or at the very least, give apps with high star ratings with x amount of ratings a bigger influence in search results.

Hopefully Apple will see the app download statistics and see that that they are top heavy. The long tail is gone which hurts the ecosystem. Then they will question what went wrong and make some positive adjustments. That's what I'm hoping.

</comment><comment><USER13> The iOS 6 app store is less dynamic than other prior app store iterations. Example being I have an app listed as number 19 under a particular search. I've been checking that search every day and we are always 19 on the list. No change whatsoever even though our downloads have fluctuated in that time. Why are we 19? No idea. Before it meant we had less downloads than the people before us. Now I have no idea. It reminds me a lot of the Chomp search results. Not really sure what Chomp said to convince Apple that their search algorithm was better than what Apple was using.

<comment><USER3> The previous system was easier to gamble. You put up a new app, pay for ads/bots/whatever, get a plenty of downloads and start showing up on the top for all the search queries (even if your app is crap), this in turn causes even more sales.

Also, in the previous system you could've positioned for a term completely unrelated to your app (e.g. you have a weight tracker, and you position for celebrity phrases because they're more popular). My guess is they try to stop that.

Oh, and even in the past it wasn't just popularity that guided the results. We did a detailed analysis of this ( techcrunch.com/2012/03/12/appcod-es- launches-app-store-prediction-tool-tells-developers-which-keywords-work/ )

<comment><USER13> As a developer, I had a path to improve my ranking which was to find a way to increase my downloads. I agree, the keywords model is somewhat of a fail in general because people can pick unrelated words, but this new version is actually worse than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> pedro-alejandro The layout also limits the space allocated to the app's title. When scrolling though the top paid apps, it seems it cuts off the title at 7 characters. Basically, almost every app ends with "..." due to space. This is terrible.

The card view is slow, and my App Store crashed once I reached search result #100 (I was searching for my own app). I'm on a 4S, which should be albe to handle the load.

They did introduce the "Related" tab within an apps page, but I'm curious to see how that affects sales after a few weeks.

<comment><USER3> Pedro, use our tool like AppCod.es (ours) for tracking your position. It costs, but it will save you time you'd spend on scrolling :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It certainly feels like a disaster for users. I hate the single card view. It drives me crazy.

<comment><USER15> Weird. I prefer it. I much prefer to see a screenshot of the app than just an icon and title.

<comment><USER16> I don't mind the single card bit, its the search that is horrid. Example from today, I searched for "Jasmine", which is a youtube client app. It is #5 on the list, the first "match" is "My Princess Diary". However they are ranking apps is making things as painful for users as developers. Almost doubly so for the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So discovery is hampered, more focus on the screenshot and title is limited to 7 characters. Sounds like Apple want users to find fewer, but higher quality apps:

\- browsing fewer apps, with users looking closer at each of them;

\- screenshot of the app, you buy the app, not the icon and title;

\- shorter title, less stuffed with keywords [good apps often have short names: Skype, Spotify, Instagram, Twitter].

I think this is a good thing, the app store has been too much about churning out low-quality apps.

<comment><USER18> > good apps often have short names: Skype, Spotify, Instagram, Twitter

I think you mean 'well-recognized brands have short names'. If you're trying to discover a new Twitter client, it might help for them to have their name, and 'Twitter', in the title. The goal with search isn't to deliver the user to exactly the app they already know they want, but to display apps they might want. Discovery is really hard given one screenshot and 7 characters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sorry to go off topic, but did anyone else close the article right when they got to the ad with the "Article continues below" link above it? They've got stats showing that users don't realize their articles continue because they throw ads right in the middle of them, and they fixed the problem with an anchor link? Good god.

</comment><comment><USER20> My App Store experiment is still ticking along with no big reduction in its modest number of daily downloads although maybe it has just enough reviews not to disappear (4.5 stars UK and US stores). The update going into store did help, I think that there might be a penalty for not having issued an update recently. I issued an update for the iPhone 5 and the numbers picked up (got my record daily download yesterday).

<http://itunes.com/apps/fastlists>

It's a lists app but I want it to be the best damn lists app. It is particularly designed for repeated use lists like packing and shopping. All free at the moment but some in-app purchases will be coming soon although existing users won't lose any features.

</comment><comment><USER21> The 3 and 1/4 icons displayed on a single row is a bad idea. Not because it's bad UX but because it seems that the application doesn't cache any hidden icons. Every time I scroll the list that's a (very) small loading time that block the natural scroll.

Anyway I like the "See all" view (but I haven't used it from day one, I don't know way but it didn't catch my attention). Finally Apple has implemented infinite scroll. I found myself more inclined to continue to scroll the list part application #20.

On the old App Store you had to tap the "show 20 more" cell. For me It's a sort of psychological barrier. It's like saying "there are more apps, I don't show them to you cause they are not very good". I don't know if I explained it well.

<comment><USER22> Yes, the whole App Store seems laggy now. When you're on the 25th card, it takes a while for card #26 to show its edge, leading the user to think there aren't more apps and if there are no one wants to download them anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The new search layout shows very little information,is heavy and crashes now and then(true on 4S but not so on the new iPad where the search result displays more information at once with no crashes so far). The Genius tab is a real loss for me as I don't use it at all. I like to browse by category but now I have to tap twice where once was ok... The result in itself are also plainly wrong most of the time. I've stopped using it and I've switched to AppShopper, way better(I am absolutely not affiliated with this app^^)

</comment><comment><USER24> Its most likely not a disaster for Apple in that Im sure it was purposeful. Id assume their thinking is that for every "unproven" app that gets surfaced to the user could be lost revenue in place of giving more focus to an established app with a higher likelihood of a buy. To me it seems like one of those short sighted how do we grow our revenue in the app store by 12% business maneuvers.

The long term and bigger picture impact of those decisions on Apple I guess we will have to wait and see.

<comment><USER25> iOS devices are successful because of the developers, just ask Microsoft. Now they are killing the hen that laid golden apps. I am surprised how quickly Apple lost its way after Steve.

<comment><USER26> What makes you think Steve Jobs, wouldn't approve of it? I mean maps probably wouldn't get out of the door, but this seems fine albeit different.

I kinda feel sad about all the "What would Steve do. He'd do exactly as I want" I constantly see. If memory doesn't fool me, Final Cut Pro X was panned by users, while Steve Jobs was at the helm. The only difference now it seems there is no RDF deployed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My sales seems to have dropped but I really think we need more time to know for sure.

With only 3 days of sales data since the iOS 6 launch (according to iTunes Connect Mobile) how are any of you able to say for sure one way or the other that the discovery is actually worse?

Here are my sales: [https://twitter.com/tsteil/status/251273647262691328/photo/1...](https://twitter.com/tsteil/status/251273647262691328/photo/1/large) The past 3 days I've only had 1 sale per day. The last time I had 1 sale per day for 3 days was back in May.

My other app: [https://twitter.com/tsteil/status/251275489241624577/photo/1...](https://twitter.com/tsteil/status/251275489241624577/photo/1/large) Only 2 sales this week (Sep 17 - Sep 23). In the past 26 weeks there have only been 2 weeks where I had 2 or less sales.

So, both of my apps have seen their sales go down but that is with only 3 days worth of sales data.

(fwiw I made these 2 apps in my spare time over 3 years ago and haven't updated them since)

<comment><USER27> Actually it looks like the web view of iTunes Connect sales reports has data up to yesterday and my sales went back up. So, I'm not really seeing any change and I'm as "indie" as they come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Their main complaint was there is no new releases section, but there's still a new & noteworthy section.. and each category has its own 'new' section. Isn't that the same thing?

<comment><USER2> From experience, I can tell you each layer you ask the user to travel down eliminates 75-90% of the audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Same exact thing happened with Google Play. Google removed the recently updated view almost everywhere, while at the same time claiming they were optimizing the store for visibility for everyone's apps. But they took away the one thing that was actually doing that.

Throw in how they added responding to comments, but only by an elite few with special marks by their names that aren't earned by numbers, and there you go, it's a pretty harsh world for the small guys.

</comment><comment><USER27> No one in this thread is offering up any data showing that their sales have gone down since the iOS 6 App Store has rolled out.

My app sales seem to be unchanged. In fact, my free version downloads have actually gone _up_ since the iOS 6 release.

Another person is reporting their downloads also unchanged, "My App Store experiment is still ticking along with no big reduction in its modest number of daily downloads".

</comment><comment><USER30> For all this talk about App Store discovery, why hasn't anyone set up an alternative means of discovery? After all, all you need is a link to the item on itunes. It should be theoretically easy to set up a mobile webpage with a list of indie apps, and with improved searching it'd be very easy to bootstrap such a site with at most a week's worth of effort.

<comment><USER31> That's what App.net was going to build (hence the name) until Facebook threatened to revoke API access if they didn't agree to an aquihire. Spreading via Facebook is pretty much required for something like that to take off, but Facebook has decided that they want to be in that business (<https://www.facebook.com/appcenter/>).

<comment><USER32> Wow, I had no idea.

I guess that explains why they picked such an odd name for a twitter clone!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The revised iOS 6 App Store app has disadvantages from a user perspective too. In-app purchases in particular are no longer prominently shown near the app name but somewhere below on the description page and it is therefore no longer possible to immediately see whether a 'free' app is actually free.</comment>


Government Quietly Changes Rules on Foreign Tech Workers - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/04/07/government-quietly-changes-rules-on-foreign-tech-workers/?mod=WSJBlog

<comment><USER2> I don't get while everyone likes to complain that there are these high skilled American engineers that can't get jobs because of cheaper H1B workers? Where are the people because I know many companies paying top dollar that have a real problem finding talent.

<comment><USER3> > Where are the people

And to you I say "where are the companies?" I know that I can speak for myself and my peers that these mythical $100K positions that companies are having _such_ a hard time filling are pretty hard to come by.

This move by DHS looks like blatant brown-nosing to corporate interests who have been pushing this "shortage" crap in order to cut their bottom line. It's pretty clear that cost cutting is the main motive when the average H-1B worker is paid thousands less than the average native employee in the same field.

P.S. I understand that companies DO have a hard time finding talent. The market is filled to the brim with JavaSchool clones that flood HR departments with hundreds of resumes week after week. The companies should, however, actually try to _reach out_ to good talent instead of just wading through piles of resumes.

<comment><USER4> How do you propose they reach out to the good talent? I ask because I know managers at a number of companies near me that cannot find good developers. They can find 100 far less than ideal ones but finding one that is worth hiring and doesn't already have a good job is proving near impossible. So how would you recommend they go about finding these people?

<comment><USER5> they can start by lowering their standards...

<comment><USER4> Why should they spend their money on less than ideal candidates when apparently a lot of highly skilled and great developers are out of work and desperate?

<comment><USER5> >finding one that is worth hiring and doesn't already have a good job is proving near impossible

I think you answered your own question. At some point they should just take a look at the harsh reality and concede that they aren't the most attractive place to work for the money they pay.

<comment><USER4> It's harder to convince a quality person to leave a stable position for another stable position than it is to convince them to come to yours from no position despite what perks you may offer.

I think one of the few companies in IT who doesn't have this issue right now is probably Facebook, Google use to be in that position until recently when there seems to be some backlash.

The harsh reality is that there really is a disproportionate number of bad to ok programmers in the North American market compared to good to great programmers.

So I guess getting back on topic. Is there a shortage of developers? No. Is there a shortage of quality developers? Probably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is like, a BFD. I have some foreign friends that would love to use this when they graduate. Can you imagine, all the students who will bring a printout of this change to their job interviews to prove that the company can hire them. Pretty awesome for them. Probably more competition for me when _I_ try to get a job in a tech company.</comment>


Huawei Matebook X Pro Sets Sights on the MacBook Pro at MWC - rwx<comment> https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-matebook-x-pro-mwc-2018/ </comment><comment><AUTHOR> Read this Hacker News story instead: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16460310](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16460310)

CNET's article runs soooo sloooowly on my (up to date) Google Chrome on a current MBP.

</comment><comment><USER2> Love the 3x2 aspect ratio.

Wish they hadn't copied the silly cursor key layout.

<comment><USER3> Same here.</comment></comment>


The Shawshank Redemption - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption <comment><USER2> While I recognise that the interests of people on HN cover more than just programming, entrepreneurship, startups, and science, I'm struggling to see how this meets the guidelines[0] of

        On-Topic: Anything that good hackers
                  would find interesting ...
                  anything that gratifies one's
                  intellectual curiosity.

What am I missing? In what way does this gratify one's intellectual curiosity?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


Don't Ever Forget About Linus Torvalds – Hacker Noon - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/dont-ever-forget-about-linus-torvalds-e196bcd016b8 <comment><USER2> "Hacking lives on, if you can stay out of Federal Prison, but people are ultimately more enamored with the big money. The tech press, especially. Chasing dollars and begging millionaire 20-somethings? Networking, even? Not exactly what I like to call, the Hacker way."

The Hacker way, a lost art indeed; Linus, you rock!

</comment><comment><USER3> And Don't Ever Forget the giant on whose shoulders Linus Torvalds stands: Richard Stallman!</comment>


Ask HN: Good keyboard and mouse to mitigate RSI? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I've recently been working for two clients at once, meaning occasional 50-60 hour weeks, and noticed that I started having a twingy, aching pain in my fingers from all the typing. At the moment I exclusively use my Macbook Pro without any external keyboard or mouse. At my main job I work in an office with a pretty comfortable desk and chair; for the other client I work at home on a comfortable chair and table but probably not at the best height.
What are your recommendations for good external peripherals to try and ward off RSI? I'm thinking specifically a good keyboard and mouse combination for programming, which is most of what I do.
Very grateful for any suggestions! <comment><USER2> This might not be the answer you're looking for, but I've found that posture-- particularly the angle of my elbows and wrists--makes a huge difference. I've been told that my elbows and wrists shouldn't be wresting on anything, my elbows should be at 90-degree angles, and my wrists should be flat. (This means the keyboard has to be at the correct height, just barely lower than your elbows.)

Squishy rests and such feel nice at first, but the feeling doesn't last, especially if you're using a computer for more than an hour. You end up moving your wrists too much.

I do like a good keyboard; my current favorite is a high-profile Topre Realforce keyboard. However, I'm under no illusion that the keyboard makes a difference in terms of RSI. It just like how it sounds and feels.

The hardest adjustment for me was keeping my wrists up when I type. To encourage correct posture, I now keep my keyboard on the very edge of the desk so there's nothing for my wrists to rest on. It's also a bit difficult to find a desk that's the correct height--most are too high--but it's definitely possible. If you get one with a keyboard tray, make sure the tray is large enough to fit your mouse, too; personally, I need the same posture for my mouse as for my keyboard. It's often easier to get a shorter desk and raise your screen than it is to get a higher desk with a reasonably-sized keyboard tray.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the advice, I appreciate it.</comment></comment>


Origin Sells Out - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2019/09/origin-sells-out/ <comment><USER2> Origin made a ton of great games. "We make worlds" was their motto and I feel they lived up to that lofty ambition.

One game I remember fondly that would appeal to this crowd was called Omega. There was some light but well-done chrome that you were an employee of some gigantic defense contractor writing AI for drone tanks. You'd design the chassis of your tank with parts that you unlocked by playing the game. Then you'd write the AI for your tank using a simple BASIC-like language. The game shipped with a hefty programming reference book.

Finally once you'd designed your tank you'd put it into an arena to test against other tanks. Early matches were 1:1 but you could build tanks that operated as a team (there were ways for the tanks to send messages to each other).

The game was a blast. My best tanks were stupid simple (back into a corner and rapidly scan the quarter of the arena where the enemy might appear). I feel like the game taught me a lot and was really fun to play. The only downside was all the loading times, swapping disks on my C64. But that was how games were back then

[https://www.mobygames.com/game/omega_](https://www.mobygames.com/game/omega_)

<comment><USER3> I played this game as a kid and usually ended up writing key bindings so I could directly control the tank. But, it was so fun to experiment with different strategies.

Thanks for reminding me of the name of the game because I loved it and could never remember what it was called.

<comment><USER4> When I was a kid my friend and I played a lot. We'd bring our favorite AI programs over to each other's house to compete with the other's favorite AI.

One day I stumbled across how to set up keybindings, neither of us knew that it was a thing. I kept it to myself and invited him over, challenging him to try extra hard on his AI. He loaded it up, and I proceeded to annihilate his tank with my human controlled version. The look on his face was priceless and sticks with me to this day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I worked at Origin in Austin as a summer intern shortly after EA took over. They were hard at work on Ultima Online 2, which they cancelled a about a year later. It was a bummer, as I had just interviewed to work on the Star Wars MMO, and when UO2 got shut down, suddenly a ton of experienced MMO devs were on the market and in town, and they passed on me, a college grad :(

On the bright side I probably make more money now than I would have had I gotten my foot into AAA gamedev!

<comment><USER6> I really really wanted Ultima Online 2 to happen, and looking back, it could have changed how future MMOs like Everquest or WoW had been developed. The failure of UO2 made a lot of studios wary of sandbox open world games, and they decided to go the more moderate route of theme-park design (limited, predictable design) for both world design and character abilities.

<comment><USER7> Eh Star Wars Galaxies was still developed in the "sandbox" mold and released to tepid reception. There have been successful sandbox MMOs - EVE Online and Second Life - but the audience for that experience is a lot smaller than for games like WoW (or the MMO-lites that are de jure now like Destiny, The Division, Anthem).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always been curious of what EA's side of things was here. Are they really just money-hungry executives who like buying brands to suck the money out of them and kill anything good there? Or do they have other motivations and reasons?

It seems EA truly does not care about gaming, or the people working under them. But I'd like to hear differently about how they all saw this go down instead.

How does Trip Hawkins view all of this? He seems to be someone who got lucky (started at Apple early), and then proceeded to be manage companies that kept sinking good opportunities under his leadership.

<comment><USER7> Can't speak to EA's motivations then, though I worked with a couple of Origin engineers who worked at Origin post-acquisition and have been at EA in Austin most of my career. The impression I got from the ex-Origin folks is that Origin was a ripe acquisition target: large portfolio of games and franchises; good body of talent in a major game development hub; and a failing business that they could get on the cheap.

I've never understood the cynical way certain people view EA from the outside. EA is a large business (~30B market cap) and subject to the same sorts of challenges of any business at that scale. From my perspective EA is a federation of mostly autonomous studios trying to "find the fun" in an increasingly competitive entertainment landscape. Even if you manage to create a compelling core experience, bringing that to market is a challenge even at EA's scale.

<comment><USER9> >I've never understood the cynical way certain people view EA from the outside. EA is a large business (~30B market cap) and subject to the same sorts of challenges of any business at that scale. From my perspective EA is a federation of mostly autonomous studios trying to "find the fun" in an increasingly competitive entertainment landscape.

Maybe you should listen to what those outsiders are saying. EA ships half baked games for full price and loads them with the most scummy and deplorable monetization models in existence (looking at you too Activision.) I haven't heard wonderful things about the working conditions come crunch time either. It's not difficult to understand.

And let's not forget the now (in)famous "surprise mechanics" debacle. EA deserves every bit of their current public image.

<comment><USER10> EA certainly deserves their reputation, perhaps several times over.

That said, I also suspect they don't care. They make money off their properties, and as long as that is working for them, they can continue to have their jobs.

<comment><USER9> >That said, I also suspect they don't care

Oh yeah, that much is obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish someone did a writeup on how it is that practically every cool studio of the 90s has dissolved in a big publisher. The only exceptions I really can name are Id and the Obsidian/BioWare duo. Even Blizzard, industry's sacred cow around 2000, were apparently put through the blender in the later years, despite keeping the name and franchises.

My hypothesis, of course, is that very few people can keep delivering for twenty years. But still I can't help thinking―what it'd be like if Psygnosis taught a generation of rookies their way and did something other than F1 and Wipeout after 2000.

<comment><USER12> The basic economic angle of it is that video games are a hit-driven business. Large publishers especially during the 1990s have a diverse product portfolio that can cushion moderate failures with the income from hits (more so during the 90s than today). When a small studio is growing its games and budgets to keep up with player expectations, the relative safety of a publisher can be tempting compared to sticking it out independently and betting the company on each game.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, but you'd think that studios that made plenty of hits in the 90s and early 2000s would be kept as they are in hopes that they make more hits—even as subsidiaries. The publisher financed the games before, after all. But no, afaict it's the same story every time: after several years, the publisher revs up the old blender, reassigns the studio's sub-outlets to its existing regional divisions, moves people around, and either renames the studio to 'BigPublisher RegionName', or shuts it down.

Also iirc there's a running theme of 'we solemnly promise that the studio keeps the creative control after the acquisition,' from both companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One of my favourite Origin games was the Crusader: No Remorse|Regret series. Young me never managed to complete either of those two.

It was interesting to learn that Remorse was made using Ultima VI's game engine that was considered too action-y for a turn based RPG.

<comment><USER14> Wasn't that Ultima VIII (Pagan) game engine?

<comment><USER15> It was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thanks for posting, that was a good read!

Related tidbits for Chris Roberts' current project, the long in development and hopefully finished some day Star Citizen. They've referenced both Origin and EA as companies in the Star Citizen universe, it's a cute little easter egg of industry history.

"Origin Jumpworks" as one of the ship manufacturers, and "Electronic Access" as makers of the Star Marine (first person shooter) and Arena Commander (ship combat arena) modes which are positioned as in-universe video games.

I missed out on a lot of the older spaceship games, I ought to pick those up on GoG and give them a try sometime.

<comment><USER17> Same here. The only Chris Roberts game I've played was his last, Freelancer. I liked it enough to give him $60 for Star Citizen.

The only other space games I've tried are in the X series, but they focus heavily on economics instead of flight and combat.

<comment><USER16> If you're interested in checking out more recent space games, Everspace and No Man's Sky are the two I've played in the last few years. Everspace is more on the dogfighting and equipment progression side of things, while NMS is exploration, survival, and base building with a heavy dose of retro sci-fi visuals.

Got my start on Mac games, so Escape Velocity: Nova was my jam. Loving the variety of space games these days.

<comment><USER17> I heard about No Man's Sky. The launch disappointed lots of people, but I heard the updates have made it into what it was supposed to be.

I have some broad gaming tastes, and about 500 unplayed Steam games, so I'm not exactly looking into acquiring more right now.

<comment><USER16> I didn't play it until the recent _Beyond_ update. Definitely a rough start but they've more than made up for it. Cherry-picking some screenshots from reddit:

[https://i.redd.it/bdbu308b61h31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/bdbu308b61h31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/or8x426qq0j31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/or8x426qq0j31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/3gq1x76165h31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/3gq1x76165h31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/ufdqd5digij31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/ufdqd5digij31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/7meco1wufzj31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/7meco1wufzj31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/7120n20i00h31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/7120n20i00h31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/jowjsxd9qfi31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/jowjsxd9qfi31.jpg) [https://i.redd.it/4aimsghw5mj31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/4aimsghw5mj31.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Remember, not only Ultima and the other big stuff, but also an early computer version of the wargame Ogre and the Car Wars inspired AutoDuel. Really brought together a bunch different play aspects from multiple sources and made some amazing experiences.</comment>


How PyPy works - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/a/8569919/744276

<comment><USER2> For those interested in how PyPy works, I highly recommend watching these presentations by Dave Beazley about RPython:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjnRLG8ATn4>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkt_BtR9Kzk>

Also, for those going, I believe he'll be talking about this in his keynote at PyCon.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well this is interesting.

That's a question I submitted while in the process of researching my final paper for Alfred Aho's advanced compilers course at Columbia University. In the paper, I discuss why compiling Python to C is difficult, and present some of the process that PyPy uses to make the translation happen for RPython.

Here's the link:

[http://www.scribd.com/thejfasi/d/83851011-COMS-6998-Final- Pa...](http://www.scribd.com/thejfasi/d/83851011-COMS-6998-Final-Paper)

EDIT: The title of this post is slightly misleading. It doesn't discuss how PyPy works, just how the translation framework happens.

</comment><comment><USER4> On the topic, there was an article about using RPython to quickly implement PyPy-like JIT VMs. [http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/fast_enough_v...](http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/fast_enough_vms_in_fast_enough_time)</comment>


A new theoretical model suggests quantum entanglement helps hold DNA together - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

<comment><USER2> I recently finished my PhD on quantum effects in biology (my focus was on photosynthesis). This article and the many others like it are full of poorly substantiated hype.

Yes, quantum mechanics is important to some biological processes. But (1) many physicists in this field have blatantly ignored vital chemical and biological details when constructing their models and (2) it's not entirely clear who should be "surprised" by this sort of quantum entanglement, which is not that different from standard notions of chemical bonds.

Also note that this news piece is actually from 2010, and the preprint article it refers to ([http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053)) was never published in a peer-reviewed journal -- presumably because the authors couldn't get it past peer review.

<comment><USER3> > Yes, quantum mechanics is important to some biological processes.

I'm not quite sure how to parse this statement. Wouldn't quantum mechanics underlie _all_ biological processes?

<comment><USER4> The point is that, while quantum rules sit at the bottom of most macroscopic objects, quantum rules aren't important for most objects on an everyday basis. Similarly, if entanglement is important for explaining the behavior of DNA, that would be novel factual information.

<comment><USER2> Yes, exactly. You don't need to understand quantum mechanics to understand most biological processes (within the limits of our current knowledge). Biologists don't need to learn quantum mechanics.

<comment><USER5> that is not true at all. I'm engineering a better hydrogenase and had to explain marcus theory to the biology profs (i.e. all of them, since I work at a biology institute). Totally hopeless, because they didn't know quantum. Knowing quantum from chemistry, I taught the basic principles to myself in a few minutes.

<comment><USER6> He said most. Look at what the Anton CPU can do with just force fields and spring modeled bonds. They have found some cases where quantum matters, buy not all.

<comment><USER5> electron transfer is a basic concept in metabolism, my specific application notwithstanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate when people talk about entanglement as some separate phenomenon, while it is actually an effect of considering non-local QM in local approximation -- such post should be titled "considering entanglement improves DNA model accuracy" which is catchy adequately to the true value of the paper. This way it is like calling a sports article "Goalkeeper foiled by... angular momentum!".

</comment><comment><USER8> A more accurate title would be "We've found parameters for our simulation that gives a role to room-temperature entanglement a shot at being somewhat relevant to base pairing", by and large ignoring all that chromatin structure that also holds DNA together as well ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatin) )

<comment><USER9> Only eukaryotes have chromatin. Besides, even eukaryotic DNA doesn't spend all its time as chromatin. Base pairing is still important, especially during replication and translation.

<comment><USER8> Yes, fully agreed. Base-pairing as a regular chemical process is vital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is probably a naïve question, but what examples exist of room-temperature entanglement naturally occurring? In other words, are we dealing with an entirely new phenomena or is this a "routine" phenomena being postulated to be found in a really cool place?

<comment><USER11> It's worth noting that entanglement happens pretty much all the time, all around you. Long-lived entanglement is a lab phenomenon though - it's only significant when we arrange the system so we actually preserve it for a usefully long amount of time.

<comment><USER12> Yes, this is something I wish was elaborated upon more. Entanglement isn't some strange process that rarely occurs. It occurs with all particles of matter at once due to the fact that the wavefunction that describes a system is a function of all particles. It just so happens that if some portions of matter are well isolated from another portion, then you can approximate the overall wavefunction by writing it as the product of two independent wavefunctions of two subsystems.

When there are noticeable effects that deviate from this approximation, that's what most articles are referring to as "entanglement".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If quantum mechanics is truly random at that level, and these mechanics affect biological processes, would that mean we do not live in a deterministic universe?

So if we restarted the universe from the exact starting conditions (imagine this can be done for sake of my point) then does this mean the universe would be different every single time?

<comment><USER12> > So if we restarted the universe from the exact starting conditions (imagine > this can be done for sake of my point) then does this mean the universe > would be different every single time?

Assuming there's such a thing as a universal wavefunction (which seems to be kind of debated), then yes, that is what quantum mechanics predicts at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My understanding is that their work is more like "coupling" than "entanglement" (as the media describes entanglement). From the abstract of their arXiv article, it sounds like what they're looking at is the motion of the base pairs together. This is certainly pretty cool, but it's not quite the same as some of the other results on quantum entanglement where two particles are entangled and by observing one, you can infer the other, etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> >There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life.

When was this? Last February 31st? I don't recall any biologists discounting the last Nobel prize in Chemistry (which was biology and classical/quntum physics related as well).

<comment><USER5> the only example i can think of is the ongoing debate about whether or not a proton can undergo quantum mechanical tunneling in enzymes, which has been on and off debated for about 30 or 40 years. That electrons undergo quantum mechanical tunnelling in enzymes, though, has been uncontroversial for just as long, so it would be tough to say that biologists have rejected 'quantum mechanics' en banc.

<comment><USER16> There has been an on and off big deal about the so called Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex. Some people were big proponents of quantum coherence playing a role in its photosynthetic energy transfer mechanism (based on extrapolating from close to 0 K measurements, mind!)

Others ([http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do- mat...](http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-matter-in- photosynthesis.html)) cast some doubt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ok, I'm vary far from expert in QM or physics for that matter and talking out of ass here. But here's my thought: Can we look at quantum entanglement as a result from a process that occurs between two objects in a different dimension free from dimension of spacetime. Currently we define entanglement as two objects effectively sharing the same existence, no matter how far apart they might be. But "far" (or distance) applies to the dimension of space which is limited by current known laws of relativity (speed of light) that's why entanglement sounds bazarre and spooky.

<comment><USER18> You'd probably enjoy the wiki article on Implicate and Explicate Order: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder how many more decades it will take until a "technology" magazine ceases to put "weird" in front of quantum mechanics.

</comment><comment><USER20> _There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life_

Seems an odd thing to declare. Quantum mechanics is part of reality. Why would evolving things not eventually mutate to utilize aspects of reality -- especially those that operate at the atomic level?</comment>


Show HN: Snooze for Gmail – snooze emails using any client, desktop or mobile - <AUTHOR> https://snoozeyour.email/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks, just launched this today! Please comment if you're interested in trying out and would like a promo code (there are plenty available :) ).

I built this primarily because 1) I love a good technical challenge, and 2) none of the existing services out there fit my needs. There are products like Boomerang and Streak, which are both very powerful, but require you to install a browser extension and only work on your desktop.

For me, it seems silly to have to install a browser extension that might only work in one place, and then have to find a different solution for my iPhone. Snooze for Gmail works everywhere, no extensions required.

Lastly, not that I feel many people care about this, but your emails never leave your Gmail inbox, and I have no access to the access tokens created by authorizing the Google Apps Script that does the heavy lifting.

Happy to any questions about the product, tech stack, etc. Enjoy!</comment>


Monument Valley iPad game is out Hits US Store at midnight NYC time - <AUTHOR> http://appstore.com/monumentvalley

<comment><AUTHOR> It's already showing up in the UK, EU, and Australian app stores. Should be available in the US at midnight NYC time.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you wish you knew about UI/UX design? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a UI/UX designer interested in writing about design. I've written about the principles of iOS design, a case study on how I designed an iPhone app, etc., in my blog (http://radesign.in/blog/).<p>Instead of writing what I think is useful I want to write what the audience finds useful. So, what about UI/UX design you wish you knew? What would help you? What do you find interesting? What would you like to know? <comment><USER2> Hi, UX and interaction designer here, but once, a long time ago, I was a developer.

I learned to program typing in code from books and magazines, and, later, from reading and rewriting parts of open source projects that did things similar to things I wanted to do.

There's lots of ways to learn development like that today, online, including great open source books like _Dive Into Python_ and _Think Python_ and _Learn Python the Hard Way_.

There isn't so much of that for design. Not online, anyway.

I don't write about "how to design" because, like programming, it's something you have to learn by doing. There's no _Learn UX the Hard Way_ , but maybe there should be.

One of the projects I tried once was running design workshops, so I could tease out repeatable design exercise and publish those: <http://vi.to/workshop/premise.html> I ran fifteen workshops, and ultimately discovered they were structured great for the attendees, but wrong for my goals.

There's a book, _The Non-Designer's Design Book_ , which is pretty proscriptive, but does give you exercises you can try and repeat. There are other books, like _Editing By Design_ , which tell you "why" certain things are important, but doesn't include exercises.

Critique is a related problem: most interactive designers today didn't go to school for it, so they're missing the common cultural and academic background that fine artists, architects and industrial designers have, where they've learned the history of the practice, learned fundamentals, and practiced constructive criticism for years.

I don't know if you're any good as a writer or a designer, but if you're looking to write about design and make an impact on non-designers, you could do worse than to take a design pattern or an element of design and make exercises around it. Give people ways to practice them, to study an implementation, to apply it something new, and to critique it, repeatably.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the excellent suggestion. I'll think about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you're a good/better than average UI/UX designer, you obviously know something that other people (including me) don't. It's your job to identify what that something is, your audience can't really tell you :)

I find that often in things I'm better at then other people, I have a better understanding of some basic principles, that form a frame of reference and help me make decisions. I'm sure there are some basic principles that the average hacker isn't familiar with, so I think that'd be a good starting point.

I also find that I understand things best if it's written in terms I already understand, so I can connect it to knowledge I already have. Analogies are really useful for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Asking in HN is one of the ways through which I could identify what people want :) Your thinking on using analogies exactly reflects mine, thanks for the suggestion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What design styles or trends piss you off?</comment>