Ask HN: Is it rational to be afraid of mailing my list due to unsubscribes risk? - <AUTHOR> I've gathered ca.  1000 emails so far on my new programming screencasts website. The call-to-action was "episode alerts", FYI.
For a while, I emailed out each episode, but I noticed that each email caused maybe 1% of the list to unsubscribe, which is painful considering how much effort goes into winning a subscriber.
I've since reduced the frequency of mails to every 3 or so episodes (i.e. every 3 weeks). But I can't tell whether this is good idea or not.
On the one hand, mailing every episode means my content gets more eyeballs (and more chance of some virality via social media shares). On the other hand, if I hold back on using the list, then I'll have a larger list to one-day pitch any eventual paid offerings I launch.
What would you do in this situation? <comment><USER2> Unsubscribes are part and parcel of running a mailing list.

If you want to reduce them:

(1) make sure your content is important to the largest fraction of your audience

(1a) make sure each mailing contains at least something for all of your audience

(2) don't mail too frequently

(3) gracefully deal with unsubscribers, confirm that you have unsubscribed them on the page, do not send them more email

(4) really delete their email addresses, don't keep them around so you can mail them or sell them in the future

(5) make sure that your sign-up message matches the content of the thing that will be received

(6) of course, double opt-in every sign up to ensure that it is really the person subscribing and not some joe job.

(7) there will always be a fraction of your new subscribers that immediately unsubscribe after receiving the first email; this is called 'first contact churn' or some variation on that theme. This is perfectly normal and tends to be much higher than the churn from users longer in your system.

(8) Your list is as valuable as the engagement with your audience. People that do not engage with your content - whether you mail them or not - might as well not be in your system to begin with.

<comment><USER3> > double opt-in every sign up to ensure that it is really the person > subscribing and not some joe job.

Unfortunately many large US businesses still do not do this (or verify email ownership when registering for something). Other people enter their first + last @gmail when signing up for things (I have a common name), but that doesn't mean they have a business relationship with _me_ , so it's legally defined as spam.

I don't shed a tear when I mark it as spam.

<comment><USER4> I'm in a bit of a battle with Facebook right now (been going on for over a year) where someone has signed up for Facebook with one of my email addresses. I couldn't do anything to stop it. I opened a support ticket and Facebook pretty much said "there is nothing we can do". So I spammed the login page until Facebook locked the account. To which they then sent me a forgot password email which I clicked "this isn't my account" and they again said "sorry about that but there is nothing we can do".

At this point I'm fairly confident that the person cannot get into their account that uses my email address, but every few months I get an email that they're trying to reset their password and I click the "this isn't me" and Facebook says "sorry... nothing we can do".

All because they don't verify email addresses when someone signs up for an account.

<comment><USER5> I'm undecided on whether it would have been a good idea, but could you have reset the password (since it's your email), logged in, and deleted the account from there?

<comment><USER6> Unless the 3rd party enabled 2FA

<comment><USER5> They didn't even verify their email. I'd be extremely surprised if they turned on two factor authentication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> TL;DR send per episode alerts as per agreed, but include a prominent easy "click here to switch to a monthly episode summary alert" link in the messages, splitting your list into two lists. Now mail without anxiety.

1) 1% unsubscribe-per-mailing rate really isn't bad or unusual.

2) I doubt I would want a per episode email, BUT if I did suscribe to episode alerts, I might also be very surprised if they stopped coming. So you probably have a mixed population of core fans who want per-episode alerts and are surprised they're not getting them ~weekly, and a bigger group of casual interest who want to remember to look at your website to see if it stays interesting in the future, but who's ideal email frequency is more like once monthly.

That's probably ideally two lists, so ideally you need to split them. If you don't split them, I'd keep doing what they signed up for by default.

3) Keep your simple clear call to action on the web, BUT send messages with a not-next-to-unsubscribe slightly prominent "Hey, you signed up for per-episode alerts, click here if you'd like to be moved to a monthly 'episodes this month' alert instead"

That way the call to action on the web is kept simple (you know this call to action works, maybe don't mess with that), but people get used to there being an action between "do nothing and be annoyed" and "nuclear unsubscribe". This /might/ cut your per-episode-alert unsubscribe rate in half.

I would find this to be polite and considerate mailing behavior, and you in turn could feel free to stop worrying about sending your per-episode alerts.... and focus on a clean simple monthly summary message besides.

<comment><USER8> This is almost exactly what I was going to write. Don't be afraid to send episode alerts if people clicked a button labelled "episode alerts" and signed up for a mailing list caled "episode alerts". But if you see a value in less- frequent, make that an option.

Or try to actually track it to see which is working. If you send every 3 episodes, do people watch all three? When you send a mail, do you see more eyeballs on the first, or more eyeballs on the more recent?

I guess the risk here is that you're getting 33% of the engagement to save 1% churn. Is 1\ _1000 worth more than 3\_ 990?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> No, it isn't rational.

IMO, an email per episode, when they're once a week, is just fine. Yes, your screencast and email notifications aren't for everyone, and that's what the unsubscribe button is for. Don't bother compromising on that in the hopes of winning back subscribers who just aren't really interested. Focus on the ones who do enjoy your content and do want to be notified when new episodes come out. Those are the people most likely to eventually pay something for your content. Those are the people you want to keep happy, not the people who are only tenuously interested at best.

I predict there will be grumpy people here suggesting a ton of elaborate things to do. IMO, don't bother. If you have a "unsubscribe" link that is easy to see and just works with no hassle, you've already done enough, and are better than 99% of the industry. Trying to set up extra less-frequent lists or things like that is a waste of time better spent on making good content.

Don't go around thinking like you'll have a "larger list" if you do something like what you've been doing. The opposite is infact true! The people you lose with more frequent emails (we're talking one a week here) were never interested in the first place, and just haven't bothered to actually unsubscribe yet. They may not unsubscribe with the less frequent emails, but they're almost certainly not viewing your content, and will never promote it to their friends. The people who love your content are the ones to worry about keeping happy. Those people may miss episodes they would have caught if they got the alerts, and every one they catch keeps them more engaged with your product and more likely to interact or share it with others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your prediction was spot-on ufmace. Thanks for a powerful counterpoint to consider. My core value-add should be good content and if I get that right, the list will probably sort itself out.

Also it's reassuring to remember that the people I'm losing were probably never gonna be customers to begin with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A ship is safest in a harbor. But that's not what ships are built for.

<comment><USER11> It's a good analogy, but large ships are safer out on the ocean, where they can't be pushed into things on land.

<comment><USER12> The quote predates that fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Personally, if I sign up to be notified of something, I want to be notified of it. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to sign up.

Naturally some people are going to go "meh, I'm not interested in this anymore" and hit unsubscribe. But those people presumably weren't engaging with your thing anyway, or else are engaging another way (for instance, seeing new ones on Twitter or something). So why worry about them unsubscribing?

This is assuming that people actively opted in, of course. If you're signing people up via them not clicking an opt-out checkbox or something, well, that's a different story, but also, stop doing it, it just annoys people.

</comment><comment><USER14> Look - if I go out of my way (read; not missing a checkbox to opt-out) of a mailing list it's because I'm interested. My interest may wane because I decided down the road that it was no longer a fit or I found another way to get the content that doesn't contribute to making my inbox a mess (this a less a problem these days as Zoho has an option to automatically shunt newsletters to a dedicated folder, but I don't like grooming it all the time either).

Unless people are flagging you for spam, it's just a lack of continued interest - which is expected and frankly useful, as it weeds out those that aren't as engaged.

<comment><USER2> Check-boxes for opt-out are illegal in Europe. And should be elsewhere.

<comment><USER15> That just incentives organizations to not even provide an opt-out.

<comment><USER16> The requirement is that mailing lists should be opt in. This means both no opt out option checkboxes that default to opting in are non compliant.

Laws and regulations are not code, especially in Europe, a "well technically" approach is not going to get you far

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had a Mailchimp list on a very specific niche, and a website with the sole purpose of offering the signup. Lots of people signed up. I used double opt- in, lost a few there. Then, every email I sent had the conspicuous unsub link right on the top. Few people unsubscribed. That list had some 20% open rate and 12% click rate IIRC. That was many years ago.

I noticed some correlation: the larger was the time since signup to receiving the first newsletter, the more people were likely to unsubscribe.

I'd say, send those newsletters, or your subscribers may forget about you.

</comment><comment><USER18> I had a mailing list ~1500 people for a keto newsletter.

I also worried about mailing too much, not mailing enough etc. and saw the same churn.

The way I thought about it is you want a group of CORE 1000 fans. So people that unsubscribe are not CORE, and they naturally fall off.

Open up to your community, have one-on-one conversations, and you'll get feedback on what makes sense for your audience.

Provide value and keep the feedback loop going, and don't worry too much about the natural churn.

<comment><USER19> The "classic" article describing this concept is Kevin Kelly's "1,000 True Fans": [https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true- fans/](https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds like fear of rejection. Despite 99% of the list seemingly getting some value from your emails, you're more concerned about the 1% that's rejecting you.

My suggestion is to not take the rejection personally. There are so many reasons someone might unsubscribe, and none of them have to do with you personally... maybe they are too busy and any extra emails in the inbox adds to their stress, or maybe they are no longer interested in this topic, or maybe they were confused and thought the emails would be about something else, and so on... Why be offended or worried when someone unsubscribes for those reasons? Good, unsubscribe, I don't want to bother you if you lost interest in this topic!

Think about the other 99% of people who WANT to hear from you, but you're making them wait for the sake of a few people who shouldn't be on your list anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Said fear is also a problem in my personal life too. Guess these demons have an analogue in business too.

Thanks for the spiritual boost!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you don't mail them, then they're not subscribed to anything.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not from first hand experience but @dvassallo on twitter says how his audience is very organic, people unfollow and follow (equivalent of unsubscribe / subscribe I guess) all the time depending on the message he is sending and that's OK.

If you have an user base that stops liking your content then maybe other users will start liking it and subscribe?

Full disclosure I don't have much SEO experience and dislike the culture of selling people data and/or email addresses and/or optimizing for gathering more people.

I feel that if your content is good and you're happy posting new updates it will either attract people or not and attracting people shouldn't be the end goal you optimize for but rather good content.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you used to send it every episode, it's likely a chunk of those subscribers are relying on those emails to tell them your episodes are up. I'd honestly worry about losing eyeballs because people missed episodes they weren't notified of.

EDIT: Also note that the subscribers you are losing for sending too many emails probably weren't watching anyways, which is why they unsubscribed. Value your real connections and don't worry about losing people who have already lost interest.

</comment><comment><USER24> [https://www.semicolonandsons.com/](https://www.semicolonandsons.com/)

Is OP's screen cast website if anyone is looking for it.

The videos are high quality content but I really dislike the layout of his page.

It shows most recent videos and makes it semi difficult to find the First video in a series. I wish it had the some "start here" buttons at the top with the names of the different series.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you enjoyed the content.

Re: the layout on the home-page. Good point. I think I'll organize it in terms of linear "tracks" instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If it is just 1%, you are doing a great job. If those numbers start climbing, at least your content isn't time sensitive so you have the option to adjust your schedule accordingly.

One suggestion: place the email and RSS subscription links in the area adjacent to the video. Perhaps not the whole "want to become a stronger programmer" message, since that would bury your description and show notes, but it the subscription options should be more prominent. The part about the RSS feed is particularly important since some people will not subscribe to any mailing list no matter how much you want them to subscribe to your list.

Otherwise I like your choice of content and mostly enjoy your presentation. Keep up the good work.

</comment><comment><USER26> I can relate to this. I publish a newsletter for about 2,000 UK agency owners. I have a high open rate (45%) because the emails are really stories about other agencies, rather than about myself. But it's really hard to overcome that "fear of send".

Each time I send a broadcast, I will go back 5 minutes later – see who's unsubscribed – and Google them because... I don't even know!

One thing I do now is schedule my broadcasts, instead of sending them "live". I will even schedule them to go out in 5 minutes' time – for some reason that's way easier than hitting send.

</comment><comment><USER27> What I would do in your situation is try to measure the incremental value of future messages, the likelihood that a given message causes an unsubscribe, and the value of the current message to come up with a good balance.

For a small list like this, it may mean separating users into two segments:

* Actively engaged, send them a weekly update

* Not engaged, only send them big new announcements.

Marketers tend to look at link clicks, email opens (measured via embedded images), and engagement with the actual product (if you have it) for segmentation like this.

</comment><comment><USER28> It kind of depends what your motive for your mailing list is. If you are trying to sell then actually people "self cleaning" is not tat big an issue - you just need to make sure that it's at the right point in your funnel. If it's brand building it's more of a problem. 1% (as other people have said) really isn't bad. Maybe you need to offer more options - a monthly digest or something.

</comment><comment><USER29> I recently began emailing my 20,000 (confirmed opt in) member newsletter list twice a week instead of once. I view the slight bump in unsubscribes as a benefit; these are presumably people who weren't particularly interested in what I had to say in the first place.

Frankly I would rather that they unsubscribe versus filtering the newsletter to a folder where it never gets read.

<comment><USER30> yeah, there's no intrinsic value in the number itself, it's an indicator of interest. there's a saying about turning a measure into a goal making it useless as a meassure.

<comment><USER29> Counterpoint, subscriber counts do drive sponsorship rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You only want to speak to readers who are interested in your message anyway. Anything else is just wasted.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is like saying you're afraid to speak because some people won't like what you have to say.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't think people like email lists. I certainly don't. I don't know how I end up on them, but as soon as the first email comes in, I unsubscribe.

You might consider a Discord server. Users can chat with each other, and you can post announcements.

<comment><USER20> You'd be surprised, then. I often manage or have access to tech companies' contact lists and they are very very large. (I'm referring to legitimate opt- ins.)

Email is a terrific one-to-many communication tool for companies that have something useful to say and for people who want to hear it.

<comment><USER34> And I'd just add that many of us get a ton of email. (For one thing, in the before times, I went to a _lot_ of events including in the capacity of media.) Every now and then I'll go on a bit of an unsubscribe jag for companies I was never that interested in in the first place and literally never open. But, by and large, the emails that I end up just skimming past aren't a big deal and every now and then something actually catches my eye.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Netflix sends three things I might like only when one of those things are can't miss.

Give them the option of fewer emails at unsubscribe time. Perhaps they want a summary once a month. Offer them that if they ask to leave.

</comment><comment><USER36> If you send good stuff and they unsubscribe it means they don't care about the topic or are too busy. That's fine and normal. Churn is normal.

</comment><comment><USER37> What unsubscribe risks?

Either it is a legit list that unsubscribes or it's a scam. So who cares?

</comment><comment><USER15> Just do the math. Maximize the function of total new views over some time period.

</comment><comment><USER38> Nah, be more concerned about spam/bounces.

You are weeding out soft fans.

</comment><comment><USER39> Consider it a good thing - you're pruning your list.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very true. Those who leave early were very unlikely to buy any paid offerings that may one day appear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is crazy talk. Yes this thought is irrational.</comment>


Raw Strings: writing reader extensions for Racket - <AUTHOR> http://jarnaldich.me/2011/08/07/raw-strings-in-racket.html

<comment><USER2> What I find amazing is that the original author is really a Racket newbie: [http://groups.google.com/group/racket- users/browse_thread/th...](http://groups.google.com/group/racket- users/browse_thread/thread/e21d111e3beecd89)

yet she came up with elegant and working solution.

My bet is that was possible not only because of Racket's power, but also because of its great documentation and friendly, non-religious community.</comment>


The Quiet Crisis Unfolding in Software Development - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@billjordan1/the-quiet-crisis-unfolding-in-software-development-cffbdafbf450#.5zoiyaygr <comment><USER2> Technical debt can be disguised as high performance, which is the responsibility of the manager to root this out. This is where non-technical managers of technical teams fail, they don't have the skills to do it. An average employee won't be looking out for this, but a manager should be.

Most surprising is how infrequently people will even ask for things (a new PC, a raise). I suppose they feel like they will get in trouble for being needy. So totally agree don't make them ask for the little things that overall will make them happier and are of small cost to the company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolute spot on! It must be the first time I hear from the software director this understanding of pseudo-high-performance developers. We had one on the team, at some point of his ascent to the summits of the glory, he even refused to fix the trunk he broke by his commit: it would be taking him too much of his precious time, and other's time was of course plenty and cheaper.

Though I would move 'absence of interrupts' and 'private spaces' higher up on the list. This is also something few software managers truly understand.

</comment><comment><USER4> Peopleware</comment>


The Inside Story Behind Pebble's Demise - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/the-real-story-behind-pebbles-demise-303802a7afaa? <comment><USER2> Fifth posting today.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Demise&sort=byDate&dateRange=a...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Demise&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)</comment>


West Virginia Inmates Will Be Charged by the Minute to Read E-Books on Tablets - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2019/11/22/west-virginia-inmates-will-be-charged-by-the-minute-to-read-e-books-on-tablets/ <comment><USER2> This honestly sounds like something that reason.com should approve of. Libertarians are very often willing to defend terms that seem exploitative on the grounds that people would be even worse off without them:

\- Fast-food workers' wages might seem unfair, but if we raised the minimum wage, they wouldn't have jobs at all.

\- Price gouging might seem unfair, but without it, people wouldn't be taking water and supplies to disaster areas at all.

\- Sweatshops conditions might seem unfair, but without them, companies wouldn't set up in those locations at all, and workers would be even poorer working on farms.

So, given that prisoners aren't being forced to use these tablets, and they're still allowed to read paperback books that people send exactly as before, why isn't Reason arguing:

\- Charging per-minute to read free ebooks might seem unfair, but the alternative is no donated tablets at all.

<comment><USER3> You make a lot of claims that would benefit from being backed up by a reference or two.

Too me, most of your statements seems very much like false dilemmas.

<comment><USER4> I suggest rereading the original comment. You seem to have misunderstood the statements made as ones the commenter believes and is presenting as fact.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! Yes you are right! Seems he/she is basically making the same point as I.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Birkenstock CEO accuses Amazon of 'modern-day piracy' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-ceo-accuses-amazon-of-modern-day-piracy/2017/07/25/24fa7644-7086-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.40914f0db30c <comment><USER2> Counterfeiting is a real issue on Amazon, I understand the appeal of what Birkenstock is trying to achieve : _if you see a product labelled Birkenstock on Amazon it 's likely counterfeit, don't buy_. Sometimes it is worth playing the long game and in this case I think he is right to protect its brand above all else.

<comment><USER3> Similar issue: Buying apple headphones on amazon

>All< of them are fake

<comment><USER4> My daughter got bitten by this. Contacted Amazon and they refunded. Still selling them though!

<comment><USER5> _" Contacted Amazon and they refunded. Still selling them though!"_

That's the most annoying thing about Amazon. Even if you report obviously counterfeit item, they still continue to sell it. I don't get it, how this can be legal and why nobody sued them yet? Compare that to draconian DCMA actions, where the slightest suspicion can get your site blocked for good..

<comment><USER6> I think folks misunderstand the Amazon data model. It appears that Product represents a thing that can be sold. But beneath that there's something like a SellerItem, which represents a given Product as sourced from a particular Seller.

If Amazon is notified of a counterfeit Product, the correct action is NOT to remove the Product. There's no reason to think that there's anything wrong with that SKU (it's got the right description, part#, media assets, reviews, and everything).

The problem is the SellerItem - they ought to do something about the naughty seller who's trying to pass off the counterfeit item as if it's the actual Product.

Thus, even if Amazon nukes the offending Seller, the Product will still appear on the site. But one would hope that the offending seller is not listed as one of the choices for fulfilling the order.

Now, Amazon's apparent willingness to treat on-hand inventory from all Sellers as fungible is another problem...

<comment><USER5> Why should I even care about their data model as a costumer? If any other seller would pull a trick like this: "sorry, my supplier provided counterfeit items - I have nothing to do with it", they would be f-cked anyway. If Amazon stores, Amazon sells, Amazon ships then Amazon _is_ responsible. Try to order some counterfeit iPhones from China and sell them on local market. When authorities come, give them an excuse: "look, it's an Apple logo on it and supplier told it's really iPhone, it's not my fault this item is counterfeit" and tell us how it went.

<comment><USER6> Yes, of course. What I'm trying to explain is why it doesn't make sense to expect Amazon to completely expunge all references to a given Product simply because one Seller has been shown to offer counterfeit instances of it.

<comment><USER7> If they lack the ability to isolate inventory originating from untrustworthy sources or adequately manage its supplier relationships, then yes.

This will blow up in their face when a bunch of preschoolers die when a fake iPad charger or battery burns the school down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This shows why I have come to use Amazon less and less over the years...no it's not the "piracy" bullshit. It's that Amazon is buying up goods at full retail and then marking them up and counting on my ignorance and impulse to turn a profit.

In short, Amazon shopping has become adversarial. Its website is premised on dark patterns. That's why its search sucks and prices and terms change on the fly. Look how noisy Amazon's web page is, how long the delays are, and how far down the page important discriminating information...like the product description...is buried. In particular, Prime is designed to confuse the value proposition. It mixes in differential pricing, video on demand, and shipping. A person can't look at it and determine how Amazon makes money off of Prime. Having had Prime, the obvious way it profits is algorithmically. It just shows me more products that are cheaper elsewhere.

<comment><USER9> Amazon isn't an online retailer. It's something else. They don't have inventory, not in the sense that anyone can understand it. They do represent sellers (including themselves) of items, ostensibly categorized, but the search results are infuriating.

I was trying to buy school supplies, of which they had prominently linked categories, since it's that time of year. But when I searched for some package of paper, binders, or pencils, if I sorted by price, it included so many wrong products, then I never knew how to just find the best price for a given SKU. Combine that with downright scary results, I'm only left with scanning for reassuring logo's like Prime X and Prime Y.

It's a bazar full of hucksters.

[Edit] Also, I'm a Prime member, and buy everything I can there. Just the other day, I needed ink for by Brother printer. The brother ink was three times as much as the knock off. I really like Brother the company, and I wanted to buy their ink, but the budget that month was tight. So I went with the knock off. It's working fine.

<comment><USER10> Can you go into more detail on what you mean by "they don't have inventory"?

<comment><USER9> I mean they don't have "inventory" in the dictionary definition of the word. I search for items, and they will sell or fulfill an order that I click on, but the results are a confusing list of pseudo-similar things.

It's just like searching the internet for a product, not like buying from a store.

It would be like if I went into Target, and rather than an organized collection of products, it was a flea market with real and knock-off items lumped together in big piles all around the floor. And then a bunch of helpful employees to get me checked out real fast when I made a decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Considering the trouble other companies/sites have gotten into just by allowing _links_ to pirated goods and services (particularly audio video content), I cannot fathom why Amazon hasn't been slammed for hosting and selling so much obvious counterfeit goods.

<comment><USER12> Hosting, selling and _shipping_.

How Amazon has not been bankrupted by suits is beyond me. _They_ receive my money, _they_ ship the item from _their_ warehouse. They can tell tales all day but there simply is no third party anywhere close to this transaction.

<comment><USER13> Too big to fail.

<comment><USER14> This term was used for the banks. It implied that were they to fail, the economic fallout would be a disaster. I think it was also used for the American big three auto companies (two of which got a bailout).

I don't think Amazon is in that category, do you? AWS definitely for the computing industry, but for sales like these it seems like it would be a boon for local retailers.

<comment><USER13> You are right, of course. But I'm cynical. The banks _themselves_ were too big to fail. But their executives and directors were/are not "too big to jail", yet most of them walk free today.

Amazon is increasingly woven into the fabric of our economy. How long before it truly is too "big" (read: has installed enough shills in government) to fail, or too big to punish? They would be following in the great traditions laid by oil companies, auto makers, telcos, and of course banks.

Case in point: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865112](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865112)

<comment><USER15> I'm surprised this comment is downvoted, with the obvious and blatant criminality Amazon knowingly engages in being pointed out by several other commenters, this seems like one of the better explanations of why there has been essentially no legal problems with the government. Jeff Bezos is an incredibly smart guy, I suspect he realized very early on that having these bases covered is absolutely crucial to success.

<comment><USER13> Slightly OT, I'm surprised at downloading here in general. People seem to abuse it as an "I disagree" button.

<comment><USER16> Down-voting for disagreement was specifically countenanced by pg, as I learnt when I complained in the past.

Here's an example post about this topic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3760275](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3760275).

I still think it's broken. A slight fix would be to only grey-out flagged comments and use a separate (or no) way of indicating a comment is down-voted. Grouping poor comments so tightly with unpopular comments is moronic IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Counterfeit goods are routinely sold as legitimate on Amazon. It's the same listing as the legit product, too, just a different seller. Or it used to be. Since Amazon started intermingling their own inventory with Chinese counterfeit sellers, you have no idea whether you will get the real thing you ordered or a fake until you receive it regardless of which seller you order from.

<comment><USER18> This is why I've stopped buying batteries on Amazon. Everything I get for my phone is counterfeit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My running tally of reportedly counterfeit goods received from Amazon:

* Consumer electronics

* Hobby electronics

* Footwear for aging hippies

* Fashion footwear

* Books (!)

* Perfume

* Clothing

* Pet accessories

* Bicycle accessories

It doesn't seem to be hurting their business one bit.

<comment><USER20> I've heard a lot about people getting counterfeit books on Amazon. How does that work? Are the contents of the book the same as the legit version but it's been printed by a 3rd party?

<comment><USER21> > Are the contents of the book the same as the legit version but it's been > printed by a 3rd party?

In the case I dealt with, yes.

You can see some example here: [https://artofelectronics.net/the- book/counterfeit-editions/](https://artofelectronics.net/the-book/counterfeit- editions/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are a whole bunch of issues discussed here in paralel. Most, like all the back-channel stuff, are contractual issues and aren't really relevant to the consumer. Consumers can benefit from Amazon seeking product back channels.

Trademark violation (counterfeiting) is a different story. Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner" of the trademark in principle. It's there to protect consumers. You shouldn't be tricked into buying at a fake amazon. You shouldn't be tricked into buying a fake Toyota.

Amazon's tolerance of counterfeits is (very possibly) harmful to consumers, who can't reliably purchase the products they want.

Birkenstock have their own interests. One is competition from counterfeits.

The problem here is that this is a grey policy. If Amazon believes these counterfeit products are valuable and customer friendly, then label them as Birkenstock-imitaion or somesuch.

<comment><USER23> > Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner" > of the trademark in principle. It's there to protect consumers.

That's not how trademarks work. A trademark is registered by the owner and the trademark has to be defended by the owner. If someone sells something under the brand name Birkenstock, it's not some consumer protection organization that will sue, but it is up to the owner of the trademark to defend it. If trademarks only existed to protect consumers, there would be different mechanisms in place.

<comment><USER24> Huge swaths of consumer protection are enforced through private lawsuits. Don't confuse the mechanism with the policy goal.

Yes, it is up to trademark owners to defend their trademarks. But the reason they are empowered to do so under the law is because the public has an interest in feeling confident that they know who they are buying from.

<comment><USER23> Don't get hung up on my point about the mechanism. The general point is that trademark law is a lot more like a property (protecting the owner) than a consumer protection law. When I own a trademark, I can do anything I can do with any property. I can use it myself, I can sell it to someone else, I can license it someone else, I may even license it to someone that makes a different product (with some restrictions). When you buy sunglasses with the Versace trademark, you won't get anything produced by Versace or invented by them or quality controlled by them, or with warranty from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not effectively control their brand image so they pulled their products from Amazon. However, the product was still around as many individual re-sellers listed Nike products. So Nike ended up having even less control without having a relationship with Amazon [0].

Counterfeits are one issue, but brands have to accept that they cannot control distribution channels as they have in the past. Companies don't like to have their products showcased against similar products, but that's inevitable. Margins will shrink, and they'll just have to compete more on quality, value and reliability. In the end, the consumer benefits. The only solution would be to severely restrict what it means to own a product in a legal sense, which would be very harmful to consumers who value ability to re-sell and donate clothing.

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons- domin...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons-dominance- for-years-and-finally-capitulated-1498662435) (paywall)

<comment><USER26> > Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not > effectively control their brand image so they pulled their products from > Amazon. However, the product was still around as many individual re-sellers > listed Nike products. So Nike ended up having even less control without > having a relationship with Amazon [0].

This brings an interesting point though; is it fair in the market for a retailer/distributor to have such sway that _not_ selling with them becomes a riskier proposition then selling with them? Isn't that the sort of thing that we have anti-trust laws for?

<comment><USER27> I suppose Nike could have a contract with their resellers requiring they not sell Nike products on Amazon.

<comment><USER28> Virtually all Nike Amazon sellers weren't buying wholesale. They were buying from Nike stores, Nike Outlet, clearance in other stores, etc.

<comment><USER27> damn, that sounds like it would be a lousy business to be in. But I guess I'm wrong because they did it?

<comment><USER28> Yes, I've heard from people with mid six figures of inventory in Nike.

The trick is not to pay full price, use discounted gift cards, rewards, etc.

I don't do clothing, but I've used similar techniques on many other categories. Plenty of people have large businesses moving goods from retail to Amazon.

<comment><USER27> Ok - so any software/tools used in this? It seems like a niche that would be underserved but wondering if there is stuff that is especially used in this field.

What about stuff from Europe - is this mainly an American thing. sorry to be asking about stuff that you probably only know a little bit about, but you obviously know more about it than I do.

<comment><USER28> Yes, plenty of tools. Tactical arbitrage, oaxray are some popular ones at $99/month.

I do some of that and some wholesale and try to stay informed on what others are doing.

I know there's a tool called FBA Wizard used by some UK sellers, and tactical arbitrage has UK support as well but I don't know that much.

I have bought stuff from amazon.co.uk and sold on amazon.com when the price difference was large enough in the low 5 figure range, really just a handful of products that I sold a bunch of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think (but I'm hardly certain) if the cost of _fast_ shipping is reduced and provided for all companies we might start to see some downfall of Amazon.

More and more I'm buying directly from companies websites. Its often cheaper, the service is often better, and the overall shopping experience can often be easier than Amazon (comparing products and colors on Amazon is a nightmare). The only real issue is not having 2 day shipping.

This is why I think Amazon is investing so much in there own label/brand. If shipping is fast and cheap and most companies have a good ecommerce system and It was all aggregated (aka google) nicely why would I buy from Amazon?

For so long people have said lower price is what drives sales. That people go where the lowest price is. I'm starting to think immediacy is now the higher priority. When I need baby wipes ... I needed them yesterday.... and I need them to work and be the correct ones.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Kahan added that he is considering legal action against Amazon.com for > "knowingly encouraging a breach of our policy."

This seems like a very weak argument.

For context, Kahan was referring to Amazon's offer to purchase retailers' Birkenstock products. Birkenstock do not sell to Amazon and forbid any of their stockists from supplying resellers.

<comment><USER31> Why is that a weak argument and not a valid cause of action for _tortious interference with a business relationship /contract_?

<comment><USER32>
        > Tortious interference with business
        > relationships occurs where the tortfeasor
        > intentionally acts to prevent someone from
        > successfully establishing or maintaining business
        > relationships with others

So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship being maintained, which seems a stretch.

Further:

        > acts improperly with malicious intent and
        > actually interferes with the contract/expectancy,
        > causing economic harm

This also isn't something I'd want to spend time and money arguing with Amazon's legal team over, which is presumably why they're just "considering" it, rather than doing it.

<comment><USER33> > _So you 'd have to show that the action had stopped the business > relationship being maintained_

According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells their Birkenstocks to Amazon, then they'll be blacklisted and will never receive another pair of Birkenstocks ever again. That sure sounds like Amazon's action stopping a business relationship from being maintained.

<comment><USER32> Your opinion clearly differs from mine, but I struggle to see any of the examples the law is meant to target as being similar. Amazon's not stopping the business relationship from being maintained, Birkenstock is via their arbitrary agreements. If anything, I'd see Amazon as having a strong case that Birkenstock are interfering in their relationship with their sellers.

<comment><USER33> What do you mean by "arbitrary agreements"? Denigrating their policy as "arbitrary" sure makes it sound like you're biased.

I'm sure that once Amazon started reaching out to sellers to buy Birkenstocks, they were told about Birkenstock policy. If they continue reaching out to sellers after learning that (and it appears as though they did) then I would think you can make a good case that Amazon is deliberately interfering with the sellers' relationships with Birkenstock, because Amazon knows that if they're successful in convincing a seller to sell their stock to Amazon then the seller will be blacklisted by Birkenstock.

That said, IANAL, so I have no idea if this case would actually be successful if brought to suit. But it looks to me as though it has a chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is fascinating. It's a (possibly too late) push back against a growing monopoly/monopsony but the approach is a heavy-handed rejection of First Sale doctrine and the positive aspects of open markets.

Trademark should suffice, if enforced well, for customers getting the right products.

On the other hand, a world in which absolutely everything is available at Amazon and most shoppers use it exclusively will be a terrifying one where Amazon will have true tyrannical power over the market.

<comment><USER35> This is not a rejection of the first sale doctrine. This is about Birkenstock being free to choose their distributors. End users are of course free to sell their own shoes, and Birkenstock is free to choose for which retailers it will provide its stock.

<comment><USER34> All Amazon needs to do is get someone to go to a Birkenstock store and buy sandals and then sell them through Amazon. That's not the store selling to Amazon, it's selling to some customer who happens to then resell them on Amazon.

The first-sale doctrine applies when Birkenstock is asking stores to figure out how to control what customers do with the sandals after they are sold.

<comment><USER33> Birkenstock isn't asking stores to figure out how to control what customers are doing. The problem is Amazon is approaching the stores themselves and attempting to buy out their inventory. This has nothing to do with customers deciding to sell their purchased shoes to Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In this day and age, for items which do not operate on razor thin margins (like I imagine Birkenstocks are) I don't understand why there isn't a technical solution to this. Slap a unique qr code on every item leaving your plant, and have vendors check that code against your database every time they get new stock. Seems to me everybody wins? Which player is incentivised against this?

<comment><USER5> Look at Amazon warehouse photos[0] and try to imagine how long it would take to scan _every single item_ out there. Also, what happens when 1000 items have the same QR code? Do you inspect every of them individually to determine which one is genuine? Or do you discard everything, genuine products included?

0\. [http://thefrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/enhanced- buzz...](http://thefrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/enhanced-buzz- wide-10564-1417008855-13.jpg)

<comment><USER36> Surely they scan the SKU on every item at some point anyway?

<comment><USER5> I'm not familiar with Amazon internals enough, but I doubt they keep SKU for every _individual item_ , maybe for categories or types, so i.e. all the headphones of the same model has the same SKU. Then it's enough to scan a single code on crate/bin/pallet which makes things far easier, but it's not sufficient to track down individual counterfeits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> eCommerce is all about cutting out the middle men. The only way goods can be sold in shops is if the shop is making enough money. The margin needs to be there to support space and people. Which means the distributors can't be allowed to have a big margin - if the had big ones they are tempted to do big sales to the like of Amazon undercutting individual shops. Which makes the role of traditional middle men tough. Also the fewer steps in the distribution the more commercial and contractual power the producer (provided a unique product) has.

It is a war - product brands vs. platform brands. For the former controlling distribution is key.

</comment><comment><USER38> If there really is a piracy issue, why isn't ICE doing its job and investigating Amazon's suppliers? They can't just be handling immigration matters all day.

</comment><comment><USER39> Amazon.com as of writing my comment has tens of models listed. If birkenstock pulled their product how is Amazon allowed to list this?

<comment><USER40> If Amazon can get their hands on stock, nothing stops them selling them. At least I believe there's no law against it.

<comment><USER14> What about counterfeit stock? Isn't Amazon liable for that?

<comment><USER41> Yes, if someone buys the product and it turns out to be counterfeit, they can sue Amazon. But Birkenstock can't sue Amazon for selling legitimate Birkenstock products, and no one (so far) has been able to force an audit of Amazon warehouses to prove that their stock is legitimate.

The problem is that Amazon can fall back on the possibility of unofficial resellers of hypothetically genuine Birkenstock goods - you or me walking into the mall, buying a pair of Birkenstocks, and reselling them on Amazon. This, obviously, isn't an efficient business model: You or I paying list price, adding our markup for our expenses and profit, and Amazon's profit demand that we find a way to get them at less than the price on the sticker at the mall to have a competitive price (or we just list them on Amazon at higher than list for people who want to NOT go to a Birkenstock shop and would instead prefer to have them appear on their doorstep...just saying...). Hypothetically, we could find them on sale, or go to the shop owner and get them at near wholesale prices under the table, or the shop owner could list them himself. Of course, the other hypothetical way we could make this business work is to make our own fake Birkenstocks and send those to Amazon.

Amazon is just throwing their hands up and claiming they aren't responsible for determining which of these is the case. And I honestly don't understand why Birkenstock isn't able to bring them to court, get a warrant to check their warehouses, and prove that the goods they have are counterfeit. After this, they could either go for monetary damages and try to incentivize Amazon to self-police for fear of a repeat suit, or they could see if the judge is willing to force Amazon to stop listing products under the Birkenstock name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> We operate a powerful brand tracking system to monitor branded products sold on Amazon. If you're a brand looking to protect your products, check out www.semantics3.com

</comment><comment><USER43> I find it amusing thay the first time i could not read a wapo article free from HN was now: about a negative Amazon article.

So... Wsj.. Wapo and nyt (paywall me)

<comment><USER30> For the Washington Post and New York Times a new incognito session solves that problem.

<comment><USER44> another option, open up dev console. go to settings and click disable javascript. all the content shows and none of the ad/bs crying crap does not

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> That reminds me, I need some Birks. To the store locator!

<comment><USER46> How do you know if the brick and mortar store has real Birkenstocks? You essentially have to buy Birkenstocks from the producing company, or the store could open up their finances so you could see the receipt of the store buying directly from Birkenstock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Readily available on Amazon.de, from Amazon itself and from third party shoe sellers. Just saying. Quite a bit cheaper than in the US, too (sample size = 1).

<comment><USER48> You mean the counterfeits?

<comment><USER47> I have no reason to believe they are counterfeits. Their shoes are 20% cheaper in Germany even when you buy from the official store.

I think Birkenstock just has a different relationship with the German Amazon subsidiary. It's also conceivable that limiting the resale in the way they do in the US is simply not legal in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The whole "let's not sell our products on Amazon because of counterfeits" seems exceedingly silly to me.

The only people who will know about it are your "hardcore" buyers, those who keep up with everything to do with your company. To the average buyer, if the official products aren't up, all that'll do is give more exposure to the counterfeits than before, because the legitimate goods aren't there to soak up that exposure.

If anything, if they're scared of counterfeits, they should have listed the genuines even more aggressively, to get more of the views that would have gone to the counterfeits.

<comment><USER50> > If anything, if they're scared of counterfeits, they should have listed the > genuines even more aggressively, to get more of the views that would have > gone to the counterfeits.

It's ultimately the responsibility of the market place to ensure that illegal, possibly trademark breaching products are not on sale. That is their job. Amazon failed, and continues to fail to do that. From this perspective I can understand why makers don't want Amazon to sell their stuff. Which may raise enough attention to finally do more against counterfeits.

In the end, it benefits us all.

<comment><USER51> If the products are actual counterfeits (which are illegal) it's the job of the law to block them from being sold. If it's just "we don't like comparable products near ours ..." then I don't see why that's Amazons responsibility either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> That "modern-day piracy" crack is terribly offensive, and it's going to backfire in his face. "Piracy on the high seas" is _still_ a thing. People have been murdered, tortured, starved to near-death, and used as human shields by Somali pirates.

To equate Amazon exercising the right of first sale by buying and reselling shoes to the violence perpetrated by Somali pirates is an insult to the survivors of actual piracy and to the families of anyone who was murdered by Somali pirates.

<comment><USER53> I used to believe that, too, until I learned that "piracy" as slang for "copyright infringement" dates to 1603: [http://www.luminarium.org/renascence- editions/yeare.html](http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/yeare.html)

You are (and I was) 400 years out of date. That ship has sailed.

<comment><USER16> Um, I thought the Statue of Anne was considered the first copyright, in 1700 and something?

I'm not sure from a cursory look that the Word-Pirate is anything other than a "hack"?

<comment><USER16> Statute!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Their making overpriced sandals and are now surprised everyone can do the same, for cheaper, and get a piece of their pie. Well, doh.

<comment><USER22> If you can do the same for cheaper, great. You can't pretend that _you are_ Birkenstock. You can make up your own name, call them Birkenstock-like sandals, home brand sandals, whatever you want.

Birkenstock is apparently complaining about " _counterfeit products and unauthorized sellers._ " Those are two very different things.

Unauthorized reselling is legal, counterfeiting is not. These are good laws. One helps consumers, the other harms them.

-This message was written by sametmax

<comment><USER55> > -This message was written by sametmax

...que?

<comment><USER56> dalbasal was making a point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


S4: Distributed stream computing platform from Apache - <AUTHOR> http://incubator.apache.org/s4/ <comment><USER2> S4 was retired (closed) in 2014: [https://incubator.apache.org/projects/s4.html](https://incubator.apache.org/projects/s4.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Also, bad name: [http://www.supersimplestorageservice.com/](http://www.supersimplestorageservice.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there a guide that lists all the Apache projects and examples of when to use them?

<comment><USER5> Here you go - [https://projects.apache.org/projects.html](https://projects.apache.org/projects.html)

Use case for each project is not apparent unless you check it out individually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Shameless self promotion, Pachyderm is a slightly different approach to this problem.

[https://github.com/pachyderm/pachyderm](https://github.com/pachyderm/pachyderm)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's look like dead, especially taking into account the other projects like Flink, Spark, etc. that are alive...

</comment><comment><USER8> first time I hear about it! Crazy how many tools try to solve this kind of problem nowadays :O

</comment><comment><USER9> Am I right in saying this project hasn't been updated since 2013?

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe what you're actually looking for is Apache Kafka?</comment>


Ask HN: How can a rural small business get a custom PCB made? - <AUTHOR> I work for a small local ISP (staff of about 10). Most of us are network engineers, we have one full stack developer and a couple IT helpdesk folks.
We need to build a motherboard with some specific IO ports. The board is to boot Linux (KVM) with some VM's on top that run a few virtualized routers/firewalls.
We're small, in a rural place and we don't have any resources that can connect us to an EE or even a direction forward. However, making a board that caters to our need is important to us and we have a good budget to get it done.
Would the community mind sharing some advice on a layout/design service that can take our purpose need and develop a good solution prototype for us?
Thank you for any time spent responding. <comment><USER2> I get my small batch artisanal American made PCB from oshpark.com

</comment><comment><USER3> pretty sure somebody over at sparkfun.com would be able to point you in the right direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this. I'll check it out.</comment></comment>


Free Patents That Will Save Our Galaxy - <AUTHOR> http://tomgiesler.com/reduce-reuse-reinvent/ <comment><USER2> Except maybe (insert 3-5 diminutive adjectives here) the diaper bowl, these are all extremely unviable. Wasting hundreds of dollars of machinery to collect the insignificant amount of heat energy given off by a human (especially in its resting state) is not very effective. As for plants, really? Plants are, being created by evolution for the purpose of spreading, not converting CO2 to O2, are not very efficient - there are machines that do the job much better. Also, the plants have to be fed food and water, making the thing extremely bulky and _reducing_ fuel efficiency.

<comment><USER3> You didn't get tipped off by the advice that you could increase your farts by eating proprietary beans?

<comment><USER2> Guess not. Could be because I tend to focus on the article rather than wandering around all over the place.

<comment><USER3> ...it was in the article.

Don't worry, I thought it was real until halfway through the second patent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Diaper bowl? Would you put that on your kid?

The pictures of the baby mounted on the toilet-pipe bring several things to mind:

1] People are lazy. That _looks_ like too much work. The whole point of disposable diapers is that people can be lazier.

2] It's too mechanical looking, which make it seem both scary and ridiculous.

3] I can't picture average people looking at this and thinking that they'd like to buy it.

<comment><USER5> Hint: This site is a joke.

<comment><USER4> went right over my head :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Smo2gger eats CO2 and emits... stars!</comment>


A must-watch video. Woman hears her own voice for the first time. - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/09/30/sloan-churman-deaf-hears-voice/

<comment><USER2> It's amazing how beautiful people can be when they're that full of joy. Thanks for the pick-me-up on this Friday afternoon (for me anyway)!</comment>


'Forever Chemicals' Are Building Up in the Arctic–and Likely Worldwide - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forever-chemicals-are-building-up-in-the-arctic--likely-worldwide/ <comment><USER2> dead or broken link</comment>


NYC Big Apps Submissions - <AUTHOR> http://nycbigapps.com/submissions

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the NYC Contest for writing apps that use the open data that NYC provides.

Some cool entries in there, many (including mine) dealing with the health inspection reports for restaurants.</comment>


12 August 1995: It Works - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/12aug95.html <comment><USER2> Related, and for an amusing sense of technology at that time, here are the sources for a portion of Open Market's system circa 1994: [https://github.com/SovOMI/OMI-code](https://github.com/SovOMI/OMI-code)

(Open Market's store builder, shopping cart, and payment system pre-dated Viaweb by over a year).</comment>


Hollywood Faces "Devastating" Costs from California Bill Targeting Gig Economy - <AUTHOR> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-faces-devastating-costs-state-bill-targeting-uber-1219575 <comment><USER2> So unfortunate that "talent" making more than $250k a year will have a tax loophole closed by this bill.</comment>


Make sure you turn this off (Google users) - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/authenticated

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure that it's been conclusively determined that non-targeted advertising is a better outcome for the end-user than targeted advertising.

Assuming that I have to be exposed to advertising, why should I rather receive ads about tampons and mesothelioma class action lawsuits as opposed to advertising that is applicable to a North American, 30-something, male?

(Let us argue the prisoner's dilemma of ad-blocking some other time.)

<comment><USER5> I'd argue the same way. I had no clue this screen existed by my first thought wasn't "I'm going to turn this off" but rather "Let me tailor this to myself".

I hate ads in all forms (I'd rather pay 90% of the time) but if I have to see ads might as well see some that might interest me. Thought I really hate seeing ads for things I've already bought and or already pay for (DO/AWS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If anything this shows how inaccurate and thus non-threatening this kind of profiling is. This is what it's showing for me. I've marked as "-" things that are just completely insane. Like "I've not read an article or watched a video related to this category in years if ever, even by accident" levels of relevance. Cosmetics, hair care and celebrity news? It's like my profile has been mixed with that of a stereotypical teenage girl's...

      - Celebrities & Entertainment News
      - Rap & Hip-Hop
      - East Asian Music
      Online Video
      Bicycles & Accessories
      - Hygiene & Toiletries
      - Make-Up & Cosmetics
      - <USER2>
      - Hair Care
      Banking
      Adventure Games
      Shooter Games
      Mobile Phones
      Search Engine Optimisation & Marketing
      - <USER3>

<comment><USER7> I got all that too, East Asian Music in particular was pretty confusing. The rest could have come from stuff like my wife using my computer after me.

<comment><USER6> Ok, that's really interesting. Nobody uses my computers but me except on guest accounts, so there really is no sensible explanation like that. Maybe there's something to the decoy theory then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fed to the teeth, ADBLOCK TIME!

</comment><comment><USER9> this looks suspiciously like anti-Google marketing rather than an interest article

<comment><USER10> Google's ad settings page is "anti-Google marketing"?

<comment><USER11> the title of this post is</comment></comment></comment>


Advice or thoughts on my startup: Vying Games - <AUTHOR> http://vying.org

<comment><USER2> My first reaction was, for a game company, the home page wasn't very much about games. You have a lot of space to use, so you should. The home page is your marketing tool, use it to promote your games. What about them is exciting? Why would people want to play? Saying you had an update is not as important as putting the games front and center. Get some bright graphics, add some promotional copy, and use your space appropriately. You have very little time to grab attention, and the current home page doesn't do it very well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's valuable advice. I think I do have to focus more on telling a story. Regular blog posts about the games, strategy, why they're worth learning, etc.

Sometimes I find myself overly preoccupied with programming. Marketing seems easy until you try it! (at least in my case)

<comment><USER2> Thats very true. And seamlessly integrating it into your design is even harder. Blog posts can be good, but I'm really talking about visuals and copy of the homepage here. You gotta make me want to click on something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> One of the quirks I see is that when I click a game I learn more about how to play it but finding the actual links to play it are a lot harder. Yes, I eventually find them but I have no idea what to do when I click to the game page. Some (ok, most) people just wanna PLAY. They don't want to read anything, and will figure it out as they go.

So basically, make it easier to actually play games .. and spruce up your front page, but I'm sure someone else will give a more detailed feedback on that :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, for the feedback. I've found links to the bot-play pages always do much better than links to the rules. I'm trying to get more people to play each other, though, so it's hard to know what to emphasize. There are probably a lot of navigational improvements that need to be made still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I strongly recommend finding a good layout designer. The site really comes across as something a programmer did for fun, rather than a site for people to have fun. It's all about "I made these" instead of being about your players or the games.

I'm also a little skeptical about the name Vying and the TLD (.org)... neither strike me as fun. They both seem very hackish.

Is this a solo project?

<comment><AUTHOR> > It's all about "I made these" instead of being about your players or the > games.

Thanks, this is a little hard to take, but it's good advice. The focus should be more on the players and the games.

Yes, this is a solo project.

<comment><USER4> You've obviously done a lot of work here. At first glance I didn't see a lot of the features you've implemented. It took me many clicks to finally see a game, but the cool part was I could see the game's history and plays.

Naturally, this could be a barrier to entry and something that a good UI designer could help fix. At the very least, I recommend checking out "Don't Make me Think" by Steve Krug (a 37Signals publication). It will give you a lot of insight on how people interact with web apps and sites.

The only other thing you may want to consider is how you're going to get noticed. You've been up and running for a year and already have a dozen games. Do you want more players? How many? What about social networks?

You may want to consider a biz guy for marketing and promotion. A lot of what he/she will have to offer may sound really strange, if not even offensive (hint: Flash people hate ads too). But they could make the difference between 200 active users, 2K active users, or even 2M active users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like it a lot. Nice game-geeky features, oddball games, don't have to load up a blob of Java to play. The bots could be better.

I agree the initial presentation doesn't have a lot of punch. To me this is pleasing. Nice to not be pestered. But perhaps a bit more salesmanship is in order. Are you running analytics tools?

I think you're going to have a real tough time making money in this niche. A few days ago Game Table Online gave up on paid subscriptions, I assume because no one would buy one. Good luck to you anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'm really not sure what to expect from subscriptions.

I got the impression that GTO gave up on paid memberships to increase user uptake to pursue advertising dollars. I don't know a lot about their operations, but didn't they have very restricted free accounts? I can see where that'd seriously hamper user adoption.

<comment><USER5> Yes, that is essentially what GTO's email said. I was reading between the lines that subscriptions were also a lost cause.

GTO did have crippled free memberships, and the limitations were annoying. However, you got a free trial that was unrestricted, and at one point they offered me what was basically a free membership if I would just play games for a minimum # of hours per month. It sounds like they are desperate for a critical mass of players that they aren't getting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just pushed out a major update (see: <http://vying.org/blog/2008/07/the-big- release>), and I'd greatly appreciate any advice or thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER6> How are you planning to monetize it?

<comment><AUTHOR> A mixture of membership fees, advertising, and anything else I can think of. Maybe some kind of storefront that sells merchandise related to the games (books, game boards, etc). Maybe an amazon affiliate setup or some such.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> what makes this better than yahoo games?

<comment><AUTHOR> A good question. It's been a while since I played on yahoo games, so I'm not sure I can do a full comparison justice.

At yahoo games the focus is (or was, anyway) on real-time play. You play games serially. You spend a lot of time waiting for your opponent to move. Or, if you spend too much time thinking you take verbal punishment from someone who's impatient.

At Vying Games you _can_ play real-time. But, most people play turn-based (more like correspondence chess). You tend to have multiple games going at once. When you have a few minutes throughout the day you go through your games and make your moves. You don't really spend time waiting for your opponent. You don't feel rushed. This is great for busy people who want to enjoy games a few minutes at a time.

Philosophically, I don't want to get as obnoxious about advertising. I'd rather the site have a more adult (mature?) community. And, I'd rather focus on more obscure (but great!) games where possible.

<comment><USER4> "Philosophically, I don't want to get as obnoxious about advertising. I'd rather the site have a more adult (mature?) community. And, I'd rather focus on more obscure (but great!) games where possible."

There's a difference between crass promotion and essential information. I can assure you that providing good info & design is a mature concept for any project ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, of course. I think I unintentionally tied advertising with community. I meant them as separate objectives.

Some sites run annoying advertising along side the games while you're trying to play. I won't.

Some sites seem to cater towards children (as far as site design, graphics, etc), I'd rather appeal to adults.

And, some sites focus very heavily on established games like Chess and Go (which I think are great), but I'd rather bring attention to lesser known games. Although I also plan on having more established games, I just want them to be a smaller part of the mix.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


iMac Pro review: Hard to upgrade, but holy Jony Ive it's fast - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/imac-pro-review-not-a-consumer-machine-but-not-quite-perfect-for-pros-either/ <comment><USER2> What really annoys me about Apple and what shows up again in this review: In each keynote the highlight how "green" they are and how much they care about the environment.

But if they really would care about waste reduction and the environment then they would have switched over to USB-C for their phones (one truly universal type of cable = less waste), they would have kept the headphone jack (bluetooth earphones are a waste of precious resources), and they would produce laptops and desktops which are serviceable and upgradable by the user. Every single one of their products is made for "use it two years, throw it away when it breaks and buy a new one". Unfortunately other companies aren't much better, e.g. Microsofts Surface laptops which are impossible to repair.

<comment><USER3> On the contrary, my Apple computers have lasted longer and have been more reliable than any other computers I've ever used.

While my dad gets a new PC laptop seemingly every 2 years, my Macbooks last 4-5 years easily while taking a whole lot of abuse.

And since Apple products tend to hold their value really well, there's a thriving second-hand economy for these products that doesn't really exist for other manufactures. So older products get re-used by people looking for cheaper Macs or iPhones or whatever.

One last point: no one really upgrades computers anymore, especially not laptops. Desktop computers are rare in the home now, and the people who are really spending a lot of effort into maintaining their desktop rigs are gamers and video professionals. Upgrading becomes a moot point when a system lasts as long as 5 years. By that time, there is far newer technology and upgrading is no longer worth it or feasible (newer motherboard types, incompatible RAM pins, etc).

The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. That's exactly what they're doing and it's the smart way to do it - it becomes a natural part of the product lifecycle with no additional effort required from the customer.

Yes Apple do highlight how "green" they are, and you can read their annual reports and decide for yourself if it's a deserved point of pride or not for them: [https://www.apple.com/environment/](https://www.apple.com/environment/)

I will say they are probably one of the more transparent manufacturers in the industry, with initiatives ranging from carbon neutral office buildings down to the material sciences level in their products.

<comment><USER4> >The best way to do good for the environment is to create a reliable product with sustainable materials that serves it's purpose for as long as possible and then continues to deliver value through re-use. >That's exactly what they're doing

No.

Only a couple of days ago there was a NY Times article posted here on how the iPad has become obsolete just because the software isn't being updated anymore.

<comment><USER3> The reason extremely old iOS devices (not just iPads) are not receiving OS support any longer is because iOS 11 switched to 64-bit architecture (dropping 32-bit support) and all apps written going forward will be compiled for 64 bit processor architectures.

Apple is industry leading in terms of software support for their hardware. Which other manufacturer provides OS updates for 4+ years? Certainly not any of the Android OEMs.

It's not as black and white as "it's supported" or "it's not supported". There's a lot of context around certain decisions that gets filtered out of articles like the one you're referring to.

<comment><USER4> For the end user it's black and white - can you run that app on your device or not?

Android continues to run everything also on a 32-bit CPU and iOS does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was curious so i did the OpenCL benchmark on my 1080 Ti in a hackintosh.

iMac Pro = 158 808

1080 Ti = 213 913

Reference: [https://imgur.com/wfU94cb](https://imgur.com/wfU94cb)

<comment><USER6> Literally nobody who's in the target audience for the iMac Pro (photographers, video editors, professional musicians, etc.) would ever consider using a hackintosh. If your paycheck depends on your tech, you want stability and supportability.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. As a technically savvy person who knows nothing about hackintoshes the opportunity cost of researching, learning, buying, setting up, and dealing with upgrades far outweighs the potential savings of, what? Maybe 1-2k? In terms of professional work, 1-2k is nothing for peace of mind and ease of use.

<comment><USER5> I'd not recommend it if you don't have patience and time to spend.

I didn't build mine to save money, I did it because it's fun to learn and test.

I tried the beta of many Windows even the Georgia and longhorn ones. It was a lot more frustrating than this

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apple:

> So we ran into heat sink problems with MacPro. Also, people wanted a pro > machine to be extensible and upgradeable.

> We learned from our mistakes. We give you the non-upgradable non-extensible > iMac Pro that is also a heat sink problem.

[1][2]

Apple has completely dropped the ball on the pro market. Not only did the completely missed the mark with the "trashcan" MacPro (in all respects: the pros didn't want it, Apple themselves couldn't iterate and improve on the design), but they have all but abandoned anything pro-related:

\- MacOS stagnates.

\- MacBook "Pro" is not really a pro machine [2]

\- iMac Pro is a bone thrown to the crowds to wow and please, and it has "trashcan" Mac Pro written all over it

\- Thanks to the USB-c SNAFU you can't even connect external monitors to Macbook "Pro"s reliably (keeping the native color range and resolution)

And there are multiple other issues big and small. To that end, Ars Technica's "Bad" and "Ugly" conclusions are quite damning.

\----

[1] Quoting myself, [https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/940673994126249987](https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/940673994126249987)

[2] Mac Pro's issues: [https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/4/15175994/apple-mac- pro-fai...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/4/15175994/apple-mac-pro-failure- admission)

[3] "The Best Laptop Ever Made" [https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop- ever](https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever) and "Fixing the MacBook Pro" [https://marco.org/2017/11/24/fixing-the-macbook- pro](https://marco.org/2017/11/24/fixing-the-macbook-pro)

<comment><USER9> 1\. MacOSX has not been stagnating. The focus has just been on behind the scenes improvements e.g. exclusive 64-bit, Metal 2, APFS and I am very glad this is the case. Apple needs a lot more of this.

2\. MacBook Pro definitely has issues (keyboard) but in every other respect it is a pro machine. If you can provide an alternative I would be thrilled to know about it. And if "pro" = "lots of ports" well frankly I have standardised on WiFi, BT and USB-C for all my devices and so I haven't missed any of them.

3\. iMac Pro is not designed for crowds. And it isn't a replacement for the Mac Pro which is coming this year.

4\. I connect dual monitors to my MacBook Pro every single day and have never had issues with the color gamut or resolution changing.

<comment><USER10> 1\. OSX has not been stagnating. It's been regressing. Design patterns that used to be encouraged by Apple led to first party and third party apps that were small, focused, inter-operated with other apps and were extremely scriptable. All this was supported by window handling that made it easy to support a workflow involving multiple apps. The new design patterns encourage apps that are to be used full screen, have low visual density, and does not encourage inter-app communication or scripting at all, and with the sandbox actively discouraged it.

Even Gruber has been pointing out how Apple is encouraging apps that eschew all the advantages that OSX has over iOS to the point that it's much better for devs to simply build web apps (his focus is more on the sandbox though so that's another way OSX has regressed).

[https://daringfireball.net/2018/02/non_native_apps_threat_to...](https://daringfireball.net/2018/02/non_native_apps_threat_to_mac)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A dream would be cpu and build quality like this, nvidia 1080Ti or better (when it comes out) crossed with Surface Studio. At least for graphics work.

<comment><USER12> Agreed, though we will all need to pray that GPU costs come down - I saw 1080s on Amazon going for $1400 the other day, granted it was just a spot check and I'm sure it's cheaper elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the iMac Pro is just another validation that the latest MacBook Pro machines are not "Pro" at all. Where is the touch keyboard for the iMac Pro? Why does the iMac Pro have an SD Card slot? If those are indeed "Pro" features, why then were they changed on the MacBook Pro?

</comment><comment><USER14> > Note also that the iMac Pro actually has two SSDs working together, > controlled by the T2 chip. It's an unusual solution, but it works well.

Is this like a RAID0 setup, or something else?

</comment><comment><USER15> It is a nitpick for sure, but I am still amazed that a machine like this, obviously designed to be the best and look (and cost) the part, comes with a measly 1 year warranty out of the box. It takes away from the feeling that Apple has confidence in the product, imo.

For reference, European regulations will force them to upgrade that for free to at least 2 years, which is deemed a 'normal life time'.

</comment><comment><USER16> $9599 is $12117.97 in AUD. Impressive

</comment><comment><USER17> do note that Microcenter has been selling the base config at $1000 for some time now. Originally people thought to be a one off sale but it keeps coming back. Going out on a limb here to say I doubt Microcenter is doing this without Apple's blessing or assistance on pricing.

A "equal" in numbers iMac can go over three thousand making the jump not that much more.

barefeats.com has some great eGPU and other comparison testing with this machine

<comment><USER18> Important caveats on the Microcenter pricing: that's $1,000 OFF, not $1,000 total. And that price is only available for in-person pickup and limited to one per household. Nice if you can take advantage of it, but not for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My ODROID is also very fast</comment>