The realities of 'owning' a Japanese convenience store - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/27/national/behind-scenes-24-7-service-realities-owning-japanese-convenience-store/ <comment><USER2> I was just in Japan two weeks ago, and convenience stores were omnipresent. I'll admit, it was incredibly convenient, as I never went for lack of food or water, and I got into habit of grabbing a beer and a snack every night to take back to my hotel room before bed. I was relying on them (and vending machines) pretty heavily for coffee and green tea throughout the day as well.

There were way too many convenience stores that were open in the middle of the night, though (and apparently this is a requirement on the franchisees). There was a 24/7 convenience store on the first floor of my hotel, and then another one down the block, and then several more within a two block radius. There's no reason they couldn't all coordinate better so that each individual store is only open through the night a couple times per week. That would make a lot more sense. Most customers would still be able to reach an open convenience store, even in the middle of the night, within a few blocks walk. It'd be nice if stores had posted the hours of nearby stores so you'd know where else to go if the one you wanted was closed, but that's probably unnecessary now in the age of apps (I had no problem finding opening times for places on Google Maps).

<comment><USER3> Pharmacies in Poland all operate on this rotating schedule, where at least one pharmacy in town is open 24h(they always post a sign saying where the nearest 24h pharmacy is). I have no idea if it's by law or just a thing that everyone does.

<comment><USER4> Yes, this is by law and it's a requirement for having a pharmacy operating license.

Fun fact: in most of the world, medical personal like pharmacists can't go on strike.

<comment><USER5> Are you sure about that fact? Pharmacists went on strike in Netherlands this year. Another reply mentioned Poland. It seems there's no EU rule, or maybe it's more that some still need to be open.

The majority of what a pharmacy provides is repeat customers anyway. Despite regular customers planning badly pretty much all the time, the majority gets their medicine for a minimum of various weeks.

The participation of the strike in Netherlands wasn't high. It was pretty last minute idea by one frustrated worker. The reason was the increase in the aggression towards the people working in a pharmacy.

Source: I know someone working in a pharmacy.

<comment><USER6> > The reason was the increase in the aggression towards the people working in > a pharmacy.

What kind of aggression?

<comment><USER7> Aggression towards pharmacists is usually from addicts who want drugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Don't underestimate the safety factor. Walking around late at night past scores of open stores presents a significantly different backdrop to other cities around the world where everything is closed and all the lights are off.

</comment><comment><USER9> I also just came back from Tokyo and Osaka; I was blown away by how many 7/11s there were and how close they were.

The vending machines are amazing. One other thing I would like to import: the widely available, clean bathrooms all over the place. That was super nice.

<comment><USER2> Free public bathrooms everywhere was nice, but there was still a dearth of free public water fountains -- which, admittedly, most cities don't have enough of. Rome is kind of the gold standard in this regard.

I loved how some of the vending machines and convenience stores sold _hot_ canned drinks. I've never seen that anywhere in the US. Now the hot canned coffee wasn't actually good (I had to try it), but it was interesting to have that as an option. There were also plenty of vending machines that would make coffee for you (which I didn't use because I opted for free coffee in the hotel in the morning and cold green tea thereafter, which I must say was delicious).

<comment><USER10> > Now the hot canned coffee wasn't actually good (I had to try it)

You just have to find the one type of can that doesn't have added sugar or milk. Once you know those nothing beats pulling a warm can of black coffee from the machine.

Really, the first company to introduce these on stations here in the Netherlands (or anywhere these don't exist) will turn a handsome profit if they stick to the Japanese formula for 自動販売機: small cans, low prices, decent selection, warm coffee, and located on train platforms. The novelty factor of the warm cans will take care of initial promotion.

But leave out that one warm corn drink.

<comment><USER11> > Once you know those nothing beats pulling a warm can of black coffee from > the machine.

I'd say pulling a bottle of warm lemon / lime tea was even better, especially with travel-sore-throat.

> low prices

Aside from providing warm drinks, that's the big ticket right there: IME, european vending machines are basically predatory, they're way overpriced for what they provide and rely on necessity or impulse rather than just doing good business.

Japanese vending machines are omnipresent, well-stocked, with good selection of useful stuff, but more importantly you don't feel like you're throwing money down the drain when you're buying from one. The prices are obviously higher than in a 'mart, but they're not "$5 for a bottle of coke" overpriced.

<comment><USER12> "Aside from providing warm drinks, that's the big ticket right there: IME, european vending machines are basically predatory, they're way overpriced for what they provide and rely on necessity or impulse rather than just doing good business."

Absolutely agree: I don't remember the last time I bought something from a public vending machine (or even seeing someone else doing so) here in Spain.

Prices are anywhere between 2/3 times the price you would buy at a supermarket, an Airport shop kind of markup: whatever you get tastes bad as you feel swindled.

When I was in Japan it was rare if I didn't get something from a machine any given day.

<comment><USER13> Believe it or not, but even in Japan, vending machine prices are 2-3x what you'll pay in a supermarket. You just don't notice it as much because prices are low in general.

A supermarket can coffee will cost maybe 60-100円 for what you pay 120-200円 in a vending machine.

<comment><USER2> I didn't find that to be true to such a degree.

I was tracking the prices of vending machines pretty closely in Japan, and if you didn't jump at the first one you saw and waited until a more out of the way one, you could typically find almost anything in the 100-120 yen range. My favorites were the "100 yen special" machines where most or all items were 100 yen. The prices were in large red lettering to emphasize the deal. Prices could go up to 160 yen or higher in the vending machines in tourist areas, especially the ones inside ticketed attractions.

100-120 yen was around the price you'd pay for those same drinks in a convenience or grocery store, with the only exception being bottled water. You can find bottled water much more cheaply in the grocery stores than anywhere else, well under half the price by volume. This is a pretty universal rule of travel that I've found holds true everywhere.

<comment><USER13> Those 100 yen machines are rare. I lived in Kyoto, and can recall seeing only one in the city. People would go out of their way to use it. More typically, you will see machines that have 120円 prices by reducing sizes. Buy the same drink in the conbini next door, and you'd get twice the volume.

Regardless, if you're in a place where vending machine prices are lower than usual, it only means that the store prices are lower still. There's no magic here; the vending machine operators are making a healthy profit.

<comment><USER2> For what it's worth I saw more of them in Kyoto than in Tokyo. I was staying around here: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,135.7541648,17.51z](https://email@example.com,135.7541648,17.51z)

It did bother me that I could never tell what the actual size of the drink was going to be. Is it in kanji, or is it just not listed at all? I definitely had a situation where I was expecting a full normal sized bottle of green tea but got a smaller one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just came back from Japan and man are there too many convenience stores. Within any given area there is probably 6 to 7 stores within eyeshot and an easy walk. It's weird thinking that they are too convenient, but honestly they start to become pointless. More than once we simply walked by a few knowing that there would be another one just a minute or two more down the street.

It's great that we could find something to eat at 2am when jet lag messed with our eating schedule and nothing else was open except the four 24-hour chain restaurants, 6 full-service Izakayas and a late night curry shop within a 5 minute walk. What would we have ever done without a choice of 6! different convenience stores within the same area?!

Oh and on the way there's vending machines literally jammed into every available urban crack that can fit one where I can service most of my beverage and a few food needs.

I couldn't figure out how these places earn enough money to keep the lights on given the competition, now I guess I know.

<comment><USER15> > Within any given area there is probably 6 to 7 stores within eyeshot and an > easy walk.

That's just Tokyo and it's a very biased impression. Most places in Japan don't have that kind of density of combinis. I there there are about 55 000 combini in Japan, and there's probably 20% of that in Tokyo alone so you were in an area that's not representative of japan as a whole. In most other other cities there's rarely more than one combini at the same place, and you would not see 5-6 of them just by walking 5 minutes.

> I couldn't figure out how these places earn enough money to keep the lights > on given the competition, now I guess I know.

Of course they earn money. They sell products with a high markup (like 30% more than everything you find in a supermarket), they have their own lines of products with even higher profit margins, and there's usually a density of population that guarantees a minimum of business viability anyway. Never seen a combini owner that was poor or having a hard time to make ends meet.

<comment><USER16> From my place in suburban Kyoto, there are five 7-11s within a ten-minute walk. Ten years ago, there was one.

<comment><USER12> I was in Kobe a few weeks ago and it was the same, all over the city center.

As a consumer honestly there is little to complain, they ARE very convenient.

But grandparent is correct: a lot of items are expensive for what they are (some of the "fresh" meals cost as much as a eating in a normal ramen/noodle place on the street), so you pay for the convenience.

<comment><USER15> > I was in Kobe a few weeks ago and it was the same, all over the city center.

That's only in Sannomiya. Go in Suma, Nada, Rokko, you won't find that many combinis within a very short walking distance. The city center is appropriate for this kind of density because there's 3 different train lines (and 4 if you consider the metro) stopping right at the same place transporting hundreds of thousands of people every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I currently stay in japan. The competition here is intense when it comes to food and drink. Every alley, even in residential areas in the back of the houses, has some mom & pop operated hole in the wall eatery. I never see more than two customers at many of these places at a time, but they stay open ungodly hours. I can't imagine they would be making more than $2-3 an hour on the average after all the costs.

<comment><USER18> A lot of family run retail shops all over the world/Asia seem to have this misconception that family labour is free, thus their employees/children/siblings are effectively working for below minimum wage.

<comment><USER19> It's an arrangement. Low paid labor now for ownership of the business in the future

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One advantage of the prolific Japanese convenience store (or "konbini") is that any improvement in the underlying franchise system can be rapidly deployed to all franchisees (like nodes in a network). This is true of many franchises, but the konbini are exceptionally prolific, so this effect is magnified.

For example, if there is an opportunity to increase efficiency, or reduce costs or environmental impact, it would be relatively easy to deploy this throughout an entire franchise, as compared with heterogenous stores.

As for the issue of opening hours, labour shortages and demographic trends (the population is aging and decreasing) are significant. I am only aware of two likely solutions which are not mutually exclusive: (1) immigration; and (2) automation, ie. robots. Increasing the fertility rate might also address this issue, but seems less likely to happen.

<comment><USER21> I guess smaller opening times would also solve the issue. I have yet to understand why societies tolerate such things as stores open at 3am, given the productivity it has, and the implications for workers.

<comment><USER22> There's nothing inherently wrong with stores open odd hours. Some people like to keep odd hours, some have to because of the nature of their job (a lot of maintenance/repair/cleaning stuff is done at night), so some stores being open works with that. And of course there are places like clubs where night hours make more sense.

This situation in Japan seems unusual, usually a business would only stay open late if there was actually a reasonable amount of demand at that time.

<comment><USER21> The "Some people like to work odd hours" is pretty tired in my opinion. Most people who work these hours are doing it out of necessity.

If execs were forced to work whenever some of their employees work, their imagination about who likes what would change dramatically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's a bit brushed over and sprinkled in the article but this part was brutal:

> Last year, when Fukui Prefecture was hit by the heaviest snowfall in > decades, it was discovered that a 7-Eleven franchise store was banned by the > parent company from closing temporarily even after the store owner's wife > fell ill from overwork.

> He lost his wife in May last year and he "was on the verge of falling ill or > dying from karōshi (death from overwork)," he said.

It summarizes for me how extreme the relation is between franchise and the owners, how little escape they have from that abusive bind.

</comment><comment><USER24> The problem seems so obvious. There is far more supply than demand. Why do people keep opening these stores when it is clear no one wants them?

<comment><USER25> It's not clear no one wants them, since there is little data available to an ex-salaryman looking to open one in a particular neighborhood and if you do an unsophisticated "just watch a store all day" competitive analysis both a thriving store and a struggling store appear busy at all hours of day and night.

The franchisor is basically uniformly in favor of more locations since the franchisee bears most startup costs and the franchisor gets an effective call option on their cash flow.

(It's also not clear to me that convenience stores are oversupplied relative to demand; there are probably some geographic mismatches but in e.g. this neighborhood in Tokyo you can find 3 in a Us city block and they're self- evidently very viable. Which you might ask "How is that self-evident?" and I'm left to say "Trust me.")

<comment><USER26> I guess it depends on how much data you'd expect someone to gather before opening a store.

I was under the impression opening a convenience store cost $50,000 or more, not an investment to make lightly IMHO. A few visits will tell you if the owner is working 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and you can estimate markups by looking at prices on the store shelves. And that's without looking for franchisees complaining online, or asking them in person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> See also: Australia. 7-Elevens are _everywhere_ [1] and the stories of underpaid workers are commonplace [0].

[0]: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/7-elev...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/12/7-eleven- is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-in-worker-exploitation-so-whos-turning-a-blind-eye)

[1]: In the major metropolitan areas.

<comment><USER24> I'm in Adelaide and convenience stores are not super common. There is usually one on each major street but nowhere near as much as the other states. When I was in Sydney it was a massive shock to see 711 everywhere. It was quite often to have 2-3 of them within my field of vision.

<comment><USER28> The first time I went to Sydney (late 90s) I remember thinking the same - 7-11's everywhere.

There was definitely an explosion of convenience stores across Adelaide - perhaps 2010 until 2015? But they then all shuttered in quick succession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't understand the demand from the parent company to stay open late, given the lack of customers they clearly have and the oversupply of combini. I was at a 7-11 in Osaka by the dotonbori and it was basically vacant.

Like many things in Japanese society it seems to be because "this is the way it's done".

<comment><USER25> You live in a country with franchises, right? What would you articulate as the brand promise of a McDonalds? McDonalds has a very clear internal understanding of that brand promise: it includes clean bathrooms, a smile, extremely low prices available, and very consistent food.

7/11 also has a brand promise. It includes, prominently, "If you need it, 7/11 is open."

The LTV of a conbini regular is very, very, very high and the brand does not want you to sour on it for reasons specific to Store 6548 in May 2019.

<comment><USER29> I understand what a franchise is. McDonald's regularly changes its menu, removing items that do not perform. McDonald's franchise owners can run menu items in areas that make sense for them. Hours for McDonald's are set based on demand and largely up to the franchise owner.

There are many examples of franchises allowing flexibility within the brand while still adhering to the brand ideals.

It sounds like 7-11 corporate for JP is uncompromising to a fault and unwilling to meet owners halfway.

<comment><USER30> Talk to any McD's franchisee about all-day breakfast if you want a comparably "unpopular with franchisees" brand requirement.

<comment><USER22> I like the all day breakfast because it can be nice if I stayed up really late the night before and I'm getting "breakfast" at noon. I don't see the point of it past, like, 1 or 2 though.

<comment><USER31> The 24h mcd by me stops serving dinner at 2am, right when the drunks flood the lines and there are two people working the entire store. Possible reason right there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 7-11 is not friendly to Franchisees in the US either. There have been some lawsuits even

Owning a convenience store is a hard proposition

<comment><USER33> It's not just 7-Eleven. I wouldn't want to be a franchisee of any sort in the US. The power dynamic is horrible.

McDonald's is probably one of the better ones. But you're still beholden to them. They often own the land under the building, if not the building itself. They tell you exactly what you must do. They tell you when to remodel. They make you buy from their suppliers. They can decide to open another store a mile away from yours.

But longer term I think the worst franchise to be in will be car dealerships. Once EVs become mainstream, the service revenue will fall by about 80%. There's just so much less to go wrong. How will dealers be able to pay for the overhead of their giant buildings?

<comment><USER34> Chick-fil-A and McDonald's are two of the better ones. They don't give them to just anyone, and are careful about locations, too. To become a franchisee with them ,you have to have a proven record of success and have plenty of money in the bank.

Rule of thumb: the easier it is to obtain a franchise, the less it is worth.

<comment><USER35> Every CFA owner/operator (you technically don't franchise) I know (n=3) says those are basically money-printing machines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> How close another franchise would allowed to be should have been part of the contract when opening a store.

E.g. "no second franchize store in 1 mile radius" (of course this could differ from place to place based on market and population density).

<comment><USER37> When I was in Japan there were some cases of four 7/11s visible at once without turning my head, so I think you can set your sights a lot lower than a one mile radius.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I admire the courage of people who run their own business but I don't think that life would ever be for me. I love working 40-48 hours a week and leaving my work at work when I go home.

<comment><USER39> If you have confidence in your skill, can stay in the field you like and get double the average, why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It would seem that this is ripe for automation, no?

In fact, I've been surprised for some time that there hasn't been a greater development/proliferation in this area. It would seem that a large (room- sized) refrigerated vending machine offering a range equivalent to a small convenience store is already highly technologically feasible, and would probably be far more cost efficient (smaller footprint, much lower staffing requirements) than running a convenience store.

<comment><USER41> I feel like vandalism and theft would be a big problem in this scenario.

<comment><USER42> Outside of Japan maybe, but it's something that would work in that culture. From my last trip to Japan a couple of years ago, I saw vending machines everywhere. In urban areas, there would be one every couple of city blocks in urban areas; I even encountered a few in the middle of park trails in relatively more secluded areas (e.g. more or less the middle of a forest). All these vending machines appeared unattended, but they always had inventory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Inspite of having 7/11 at every nook and corner ( specially in Tokyo/Yokohama), it would be hard to get a sandwich, obento(お弁当) or onigiri if you go to a convenience store (コンビニ) just after peak lunch time.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has anyone noticed how FamilyMart seems to be in a war of attrition with 7-11. There's always one nearby another.

Lawson seems pretty fine being on their own.

</comment><comment><USER44> > The owner, in his 40s, said he works 500 hours a month.

how is this even possible? That would be almost 17 hours a day, 7 days a week for a 30-day month.

<comment><USER45> It's not; he's lying.

<comment><USER46> Do you have a source for that claim? The article doesn't give me enough information to judge but I might have missed something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's a pretty solid assumption in economics that in an industry with perfect competition, profit margins eventually converge with the benchmark interest rate.

</comment><comment><USER48> The irony is, of course, that the chain is named "Seven-Eleven" because it was originally open from 7 am to 11 pm.

> One Monday night in late March, only 10 customers came to the man's store in > the three hours before dawn, and the sales during that time were a little > more than ¥6,000. The store will be in the red if he hired someone for night > shifts.

Smart management would close the store during those hours. Of course, the franchise doesn't care for smart management - when the operator eats the loss.

<comment><USER49> I think what they're getting at is that if you want to operate a 7-Eleven, you ought to be absolutely reliably open at the expected hours. The intended alternative is to shut down the store. This man made a terrible business decision and is now stuck between a sunk cost and probably not a lot of alternatives for work.

<comment><USER50> That's the problem with a lot of franchise agreements. So many things are set and specified for you that you have no room to optimize your business as an operator.

In a way, you're almost just like an employee of the franchisor, but without any of the benefits and a lot more liability. But it's a great relationship for the person selling the franchise.

<comment><USER51> Depending on the tax system, being able to structure yourself as a « business owner » can mean more money in your pocket than being a salaried manager.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> It seems like 7 Eleven could help coordinate hours so that one owner could rest but a nearby store would be open at that time.

<comment><USER5> The article specifically states that 7/11 is preventing various stores from not being open 24/7\. E.g. small store, wife is utterly ill, 7/11 doesn't care; store needs to stay open.

It seems they like the owner exhausted so they cannot do the things which makes sense. E.g. to sell the food which is close to the expiry date instead of throwing it out. Yet another example from the article.

<comment><USER53> The article specifically states that 7/11 was preventing various stores from not being open.

"We will let the owners (of franchise stores) make the final decision (on whether to shorten operating hours)," said Seven-Eleven Japan President Fumihiko Nagamatsu.

There is a 7/11 near the Sapporo Zoo that is closed early in the evening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Even for HN, these are some of the most empathy-deficient comments that I've ever read.

Yes, it's true that there is a huge problem with overwork for the franchisees.

But those stores aren't there (just) for you.

Imagine this scenario: you're over 80, living on your own and not very mobile.

The fact that there's a 7-eleven within 100 metres that sells a large variety of foodstuffs and essential items in single portion sizes allows one to maintain one's independence, which is a godsend. Try that in LA!

Japan values social-cohesion. Many of us who live here long term do too.

Edit: admit there's a problem for the franchisees.

<comment><USER55> Right, but the solution is probably automation and not overworked to death franchise owners.

<comment><USER56> Overwork is better than no work. Automation may be part of the solution, but on its own it fails.

<comment><USER57> > Overwork is better than no work.

No work is rarely the trade-off issue in Japan. They operate for quite different margins and labor practices than eg the US.

They haven't had an unemployment rate over 5.5% in 40 years. The typical rate has been 3% to 3.5% for the last 30 years - a time in which they've suffered from perpetual economic stagnation and zero net growth. It's around 2.5% right now.

Japan is losing population while simultaneously having an extraordinarily low unemployment rate. Automation is the only path forward, they should be pursuing it with as much vigor as possible. If you're Japan, as your population contracts, the ideal is to wipe out all convenience store jobs and push the labor force higher up the ladder whenever possible.

<comment><USER58> > Automation is the only path forward, they should be pursuing it with as much > vigor as possible.

Well, they could always do more immigration. Its not like they don't do some already, and I think the Japanese will become much more open to it in the future.

<comment><USER59> As far as I understand Japan is already opening. Their new Visa score system is quite broad.

<comment><USER60> Wow, they made the point based thing quite a bit easier: [http://www.immi- moj.go.jp/newimmiact_3/en/pdf/171110_leaflet...](http://www.immi- moj.go.jp/newimmiact_3/en/pdf/171110_leaflet.pdf)

For example, you get points for JLPT N2 (previously only N1) and for patents you only need one (previously three, if IIRC).

<comment><USER51> The Ministry of Justice operates their immigration system???

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The problem is capitalism and not really 7-11. If 7-11 didn't do this, family mart would and the guy would probably lose his store altogether.

Capitalism doesn't care about people or the distress they feel during transitions. It's very effective at generally raising up the living standards of all people, but can be pretty inhumane at times when dealing with certain groups of people who's skills and services are becoming obsolete.

The only choice really is retraining and switching careers and having social safety nets. The other alternative, socialism, just spreads the pain across the entire world.

Our only realistic chance at reducing global poverty anytime soon is via capitalism. Sucks for this 7-11 owner, but that's how it goes.

<comment><USER61> Are you really sure that capitalism will reduce _global_ poverty?

The core of capitalism is competition. This may result in higher quality and larger choice, but if these are sufficient enough it will in the end result in lower prices. This has to be done through efficiency but will also result in lower wages.

I think unconstrained, uncontrolled capitalism will result in 90% of the global population working very low income, replaceable jobs, or being completely replaced by automation.

<comment><USER62> > I think unconstrained, uncontrolled capitalism will result in 90% of the > global population working very low income, replaceable jobs, or being > completely replaced by automation.

I think that's likely; after all, capitalism already replaced the jobs of 90% of the developed world population with automation and other efficiencies: that's why most of us no longer work in agriculture.

Now, was that a net negative development?

<comment><USER63> It was for the unemployed farmers help that is no longer needed and is now stuck with a house in a town where the prices have dropped way below the mortage on the house and 60 km to the closest store/gas station.

<comment><USER64> That some people might be worse off says nothing about the net effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> The problem isn't convenience stores (I lived in japan for 1.5 years and lemme tell you, they're wonderful and everyone loves them.) It's capitalisms completely unregulated growth in situations where no one could possibly benefit. They call it competition, but that's not what this is in practice.</comment>


While we have GoDaddy's attention - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/12/27/whileWeveGotGodaddysAttent.html <comment><USER2> (Sorry -- a little bit of crankiness ahead. I'll try to moderate my tone accordingly.)

OK, I've flagged this. Not only are the GoDaddy articles on the front page here getting out of hand, but this article adds literally _nothing_ to any discussion anywhere. I'm sure the author is a wonderful and intelligent person, but this particular article is completely useless.

In particular, I am completely underwhelmed by anybody that says they're writing a blog post about a company "as a warning to others", or that "there ought to be a consumer reports for ______". Here's the thing: there are already a bajillion boo-hoo stories out there about GoDaddy. They have a _terrible_ track record. (If someone is actively doing any business at all with GoDaddy, I immediately have a clue about how long they've been in the industry, and how deeply, and their level of expertise.)

But nobody bothers to do background research on companies like this! When this guy went and decided to do business with GoDaddy, he obviously didn't bother to read any of the other stuff online about them first. What good would a Consumer Reports have done him? He'd've ignored it too! The people registering 35,000 domains on GoDaddy tomorrow also won't read his post, nor will they likely read any of the other stuff out there about GoDaddy.

Instead, they'll think they've got an idea for something, say to themselves, "I need to register a domain!", wonder how to go about that, Google it, and -- "Oh yeah, GoDaddy! They say they have great support! They say they're cheap! And oh look, boobs! I've heard of them..."

I'm sorry you got ripped off by a company that ripped off thousands of other people before you. Let this be a $5 lesson to do your homework next time. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually the piece wasn't so much a warning to others (I was actually referring to another piece that did that, maybe you just skimmed my post and missed that) as it was to say that backing off SOPA support wasn't enough. That it was time for GoDaddy to change, the way other companies had changed, from crisis.

I cited the example of how Johnson & Johnson reacted to the hacking of Tylenol in the 80s. It's often cited as a textbook example of how to do it. They instituted reforms, visible ones, that made it virtually impossible for their product to be tampered with. No one demanded it of them, but they saw it as the only way out of the mess. They had lost huge market share due to the scare. But a year later they were right back on top, because they had re- invested in their brand.

GoDaddy, like it or not, is the biggest registrar. And if they can reform their service to get rid of the fraud (again, read the piece, I don't want to rewrite it here) they can lead the rest of the registrar industry. Which is a very important part of the open web. Which is part of a larger context wehere more and more of the activity on the net is going into corporate-owned silos.

I think if you read the piece carefully and didn't shoot from the hip so much, you'd see that you had mis-read. Probably due to skimming more than anything, imho.

Also, to answer your implicit question -- I went with GoDaddy originally because a lot of people I respected were using it, and I was paying $35 per year at the registrar I was using, and could save a significant amount of money using them. And further, at the time, there really wasn't much of an alternative. Only now are "no nonsense" registrars coming on-line. The best of which is hover.com, though I've used gandi.net and like them, also namecheap, but I don't like how they're "marketing" using SOPA as a selling point. I like that almost as little as GoDaddy thinking they can support SOPA without pissing off their customers.

<comment><USER2> I did skim your article previously, so I just sat down with a big cup of tea and re-read it more carefully, and as freshly as I could.

And I still stand by my earlier statements.

As you say, GoDaddy is the biggest registrar. They are already leading the registrar industry; they just aren't leading it in the ways that we'd like them to. They are wildly successful, by nearly every practical measure of a business. They have absolutely no incentive to change.

This current PR flap isn't going to make them change, either. In 18 months, nobody will even remember that this happened. I can feel pretty confident about statements like that because GoDaddy has had really ugly PR issues in the past -- though, admittedly, none of them as large as this one -- and most of those aren't even included in the wikipedia page on GoDaddy, let alone the hilariously short-term memories of people in the technology sector.

GoDaddy has been making transfers difficult ever since they opened their doors; they were part of the whole domain tasting / frontrunning issue years ago when there were multiple accusations that GoDaddy was leaking their domain search information even as they were getting in a public fight with Network Solutions over the practice; they've been up-selling customers as a business strategy forever; they've been judge, jury, and executioner in domain censorship since the very beginning; they have had a terrible track record in the security of the servers and of their control panel system since the beginning, a record that still continues even now; their website interface has never ever looked decent; and Bob Parsons has been outspoken in his political and moral repugnance for years.

Yet, you still did business with them.

I instead did business with Register4Less shortly after Network Solutions lost exclusivity specifically because they promised not to do things that way, and they've kept their promise. (It also helped that they supported Illiad back when UserFriendly was a daily read.) You complain about the amount you were paying to another registrar, but R4L has been about $14/year since shortly after they opened. I can no longer recommend them because they've made some serious technical errors recently and haven't updated their software or their business in a long time. But, it is really really wrong to say that "no nonsense" registrars are "only now" coming on-line.

You just didn't know about them.

So, that's why I'm really skeptical that your blog post is going to have any impact whatsoever on GoDaddy's business. I think that the current PR mess for GoDaddy speaks more to Reddit's considerable influence than anything else. While I hope that this ends up being the papercut that kills GoDaddy -- and I'll celebrate with a steak dinner the day that they die -- I just don't think they're going to change, because they don't have to, because people don't bother to look closely enough at the history of companies that they choose to do business with.

Tylenol in the 80's is a poor example to bring to your position. That (overblown) problem involved child safety at a time when "think of the children" was just becoming a cultural disease in the U.S., and the FDA or other regulatory bodies might have become involved.

I wonder if Fyodor now regrets selling NoDaddy to GoDaddy...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I can't respond to all this, but I did think you should read about the seven people who were _killed_ by Tylenol.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders>

So far I don't think anyone has been killed by SOPA.

Something to think about.

<comment><USER2> Absolutely no disrespect intended, but Tylenol is still a non-sequitur. Would you rather discuss them or GoDaddy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> ...we've lost our focus on the real problem.

This isn't internic. It's just a company in a commodity market whose service and policies people seem to dislike, but are about as far from a monopoly as you can get. They are relevant because we keep talking about them.

<comment><USER4> GoDaddy, like a bunch of other giant non-monopoly companies such as banks, cable co's, phone companies, etc. steal from their customers with fraudulent nickle and dime charges. Happens all the time and it collectively costs consumers billions of dollars a year. I'm confused by what your objection is with a prominent blogger pointing this out. Should people just keep quiet and let other customers be defrauded?

<comment><USER5> What the GP means is that the domain registrar business is what Scott Adams calls a "confusopoly". Just like banks and telco companies, registrars know that they can't compete on price alone, so instead they convolute their products and offerings as much as possible just to make it _look_ as differentiation, but the main purpose is to make sure that the customer has no way to objectively compare two companies.

As much as people are talking about GoDaddy and namecheap lately, no one managed to find a _cheap registrar_. Consumer opinion will always mention quality of support or the political stance of one company or another, but not one single soul managed to show me one registrar that has low prices for domain registration _and_ renewal _and_ SSL certificates. It's always one or the other.

<comment><USER6> Namecheap's $10 for a domain, $10 for a renewal, and has single-domain Comodo certs for $8.95 (wildcard certs for $89, which isn't the cheapest but is below average).

I'm pretty sure that's a "cheap registrar".

<comment><USER5> And yet, if you go to GoDaddy, you can find domain names for $1.99 _, and transfers for $7.99.

With namecheap, they list as $10, but you can get the price even lower and use the code "SOPASucks"_*

* Conditions apply. __Conditions also apply.

All of these "conditions apply" kind of makes the point of my argument. For every $8.95 cert offer, there is another offer where you get a free cert by purchasing the domain name, or by transferring from some competitor, or by renewing some existing domain.

It is a true confusopoly. These schemes to extract more money from consumers may be slightly more or less scammy, but ALL domain registrars engage in these practices.

The sad part of it is that in the end, I don't know if I'd be better off being scammed into paying an extra $4/month for some service I'm not using, or being "socially conscious" and paying more to a company that does not pull these tricks, but that can only keep itself in business by charging higher prices.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you're using "cheap registrar" in the same way as I would think most people would. $10 is cheap. It's a lunch. If you are hunting for "the best deal," it is virtually guaranteed that you're eventually going to get burned at some point or another. Find a registrar who's not breaking the bank and who doesn't act like a dick to you, and stick with 'em. Your confusion seems self-inflicted.

(Namecheap actually does give you a free $8.95-level SSL cert with a domain registration.)

<comment><USER5>
      1) Go to namecheap home-page.
      2) Try to find out how much it costs to *renew* a domain  after the first year.
      3) Realize that they are also not the masters of clarity and transparency.

No domain registrar is willing to compete on price (or premium services) alone. Not one of them is willing to put a simple price table on their front- page, and stick to it. There is always some coupon or bundled offer (can I get a discount if I don't want a SSL cert?) or volume discount, or reduction on the new ".yagni" TLD...

After all that, people just do what you say and "stick with someone who doesn't act like a dick to them". But that doesn't mean that the general confusion isn't there. Quite the contrary: it is working so well that you don't even notice it.

What I want is a domain registrar version of <http://prgmr.com/xen/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would it kill Dave to tell us the name of the add-on service in question?

<comment><AUTHOR> I linked to it from that piece. Here it is again, to save you the trouble of going back to the post.

[http://scripting.com/images/2011/10/26/goDaddyConfirmation.g...](http://scripting.com/images/2011/10/26/goDaddyConfirmation.gif)

<comment><USER7> My bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a competitor of godaddy's that charges what some, no actually most, believe is an exorbitant rate for domains (compared to godaddy) we hear every day from people who want to know why we charge what we do. Why? Because we don't sell you things you don't need and lure you in with low pricing, loss leaders or bait and switch.

Here's some background. Each and every registrar, whether they are selling 1000 domains a year or a million pays exactly the same for .com/net/ domains. The variable cost is identical and essentially set by Verisign/PIR/Afilias and ICANN. As much as large registrars want you to believe they make it up on volume that isn't what's going on. They are selling you extra services and things that you don't need. There is simply no way to make money in domains at the prices out there unless you do that. It's that simple. Now I'm not even talking about the pre checked boxes that Dave is referring to. I'm just talking about taking advantage of people who don't understand what they need and what they should buy. (Like getting privacy protection on a domain used in a business as only one example under the guise of protecting you against spam and protecting privacy!). Or worthless cctld's

Now of course there is nothing new about this. It's similar to many things in technology. Such as selling a computer and making people think they need a large fast processor even if the are only surfing the web or using the computer for email (as only one example).

(Note: On .org and .info PIR/Afilias sometimes run rebates if a registrar exceeds a certain level of domains from the previous year or time period. But as everyone knows the bulk of domains are .com)

<comment><USER9> Sorry to disagree, but we've used omnis.com for years with comparable pricing to GoDaddy and no upselling attempts ever!

<comment><USER8> Just tried to start a registration at Omnis and they immediately try to sell domain privacy protection at .99 per month. That's almost $12 per year!

"Add Domain Name Privacy Protection for $0.99 a month? Domain Name Privacy Protection will STOP spammers, telemarketers, and identity theft criminals from gaining access to your contact information. Without Domain Name Privacy Protection, your contact information is available to the public."

Spammers? Use a gmail account for the email.

Telemarketers? I have thousands of domain names all using the same phone number and rarely receive a telemarketing call (not saying this can't happen of course). If you're worried about that get a google voice phone number.

"identity theft criminals"? Totally playing on fear (especially considering many people have their contact info on their website.) And you can always use another address in your whois as well w/o paying for privacy protection.

So in other words they are willing to make .95 total per year for the base domain but want to charge close to $12 per year for something that essentially has no base cost? That's my point exactly.

But of course if you are well informed and fully know what you are getting by reading beyond the marketing speak of course you can save money (as you can by knowing the ropes with anything.)

Also you can verify this but I don't believe that Omnis gives free web and email forwarding which would require you to buy a hosting plan unless you were knowledgeable enough to know how to get around this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Assuming the author submitted this, the sentence starting with "On what planet is a customer" appears to be a fragment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Might not be the best contructed sentence, but it's a complete one. "On what planet is a customer, expressing a very clear wish, asking you to do something for them."

<comment><USER10> But it doesn't make any sense. It's like a final clause was left off.

<comment><AUTHOR> As with most other things, it probably makes a bit more sense if you read the other sentences around it. In any case my apologies for writing awkward (and to some confusing) prose.

<comment><USER10> "On what planet is a customer, expressing a very clear wish, asking you to do something for them."

That doesn't make any sense on its own. Expressing a clear wish for customer service to do something _is_ asking them to do something for you.

The preceding two sentences appear to establish that you did ask them to remove it for you:

 _It wasn't so much that I had the charge, but that it was almost impossible to get them to remove it. I got in contact with their support people and they said I had to do it myself, they couldn't do it "for" me._

The following four sentences further establish that you were asking them to do something for you:

 _That's what you get paid for. To do things on my behalf. Hopefully you make enough money. If not, you should just charge more, not do these horrible ripoffs._

So, the sentence in question makes no sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's say you win and a consensus emerges that "the sentence in question makes no sense." What then?

<comment><USER10> Are you kidding? I assume you're the author. Why wouldn't you fix it?

Really, how can that sentence possibly make sense as it stands? I tried to provide constructive criticism and received only downvotes and a snide dismissal with no explanation of how it could possibly be correct.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


To Paul Graham - <AUTHOR> http://edwardsturm.com/to-paul-graham/ <comment><USER2> Is it just me or is the scrolling on this website really annoying?

<comment><USER3> It's not just you. The JavaScript is doing something to mess with user initiated scrolling. It's also killing two-finger-left-swipe on my trackpad to go back. Disabling JavaScript makes the site work fine and doesn't seem to take away any obvious functionality.

This kind of thing is very annoying. If you want to present a _completely_ new scrolling experience (like those sites where they are essentially a vertical slideshow and attempting to scroll changes the slide), that's one thing.

On those sites it is quickly apparent that scrolling does not work normally _AND_ it is quickly apparent what the site is doing differently so I can quickly adapt.

Sites like this where the scrolling is just being tweaked instead of being replaced wholesale are much more annoying. Something is wrong but it is not immediately apparent just what is wrong.

Don't do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The essays look interesting. However, the site has weird scrolling, which is making it hard to read. If you turn that off your site's chances of going viral will increase.</comment>


Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney changed video game industry - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article238221784.html <comment><USER2> Fortnite doesn't do anything particularly new; but it does a lot of existing things well, and combines some that haven't been combined well in the past.

I'd like to stake out two wins that define Fortnite's success, to me:

1\. It's on every platform that matters, with crossplay.

That's hitherto largely unheard of for games; which is mostly a result of budget restrictions, middleware licensing, and partner contract limitations.

2\. Its store combines time-limited access, games of chance, and vanity. You have to keep playing and keep spending in order to look how you want, and how you want to look is coerced to be ever changing by the continual churn of the store.

<comment><USER3> While Fortnite might not do anything new as a business, as a game, on the technical side, it does offer new stuff. Fortnite supports large worlds with lots of players in fast-paced multiplayer. To make matters even more complicated, the players can build large structures in real time. The game also features a large amount of interactable objects with no loading screens. You could say that games like Minecraft do that, but those are graphically much simpler.

<comment><USER4> I haven't played Fortnite, but this sounds (at least partially) like Battlefield 2 about 15 years ago — huge 64 player maps with fast paced action. I remember at the time being amazed that I could fly jets and helicopters, drive tanks, or just scurry around on foot all in one game. I played many, many hours of that.

The base game did not have building or many interactive objects but there were a couple of custom mods that did.

<comment><USER3> I get where you're coming from and it is an evolution in it, but Fortnite does have more players per map. And the map is a lot bigger. The interactable objects and building is what make it quite different technically.

With games where building stuff is just tacked on, you'll find that performance drops _very_ quickly after just a few hundred objects are placed. This limits building significantly. The interactive objects point is also something that wasn't too common until recently (past few years). Skyrim had loading screens to go indoors so that they could have a lot of interactable objects indoors. If you went and put the objects from a few houses together then the game's performance dropped significantly.

<comment><USER5> You are a bit out-of-touch in games if you're comparing a 9 year old game like Skyrim when saying Fortnite is revolutionary.

You missed the Day-Z mod for Arma 3 (released 2013), H1Z1 popularised the battle royale genre before shooting itself in the foot, and of course PUBG picking up the baton.

As for building in multiplayer you've got years of work before, putting aside Minecraft, you've got 7 Days to Die, Rust, Arc Survival:Evolved.

Fortnite's not even got particularly complicated building compared to many of those other games.

The article is total dross, Epic took an existing genre and slapped Valve's already proven monetization strategy on it. Other companies were already copying Valve before Epic. Both DOTA + TF2 have been free and make money from hats for over a decade! There's been jokes about it for years[1].

I'm not saying that Fortnite's not good, I'm not saying it's not a massive success, but revolutionary or innovative it was not. This puff piece is obviously written by a someone who hasn't got a clue about games.

You can even argue that they took a failed game's assets and cobbled together a battle-royale shooter and, almost accidentally, became massively successful. Right place, right time. Overwatch did much the same thing. Several other companies failed doing exactly the same thing (e.g. Battleborn, H1Z1)

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/12kirq/valve_market...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/12kirq/valve_marketing_approach/)

<comment><USER6> Valve itself hasn't figured out it's money making strategy in games so I'm not sure why you're patting them on the back for supposedly cracking the code that Epic supposedly copied (see: Artifact). They've had to also backtrack on their item auctioning ambitions due to money laundering issues with CSGO keys.

And games like League (not sure of Dota 2) and TF2 actually give you a slight advantage if you're willing to pay. In TF2 different items will allow you to perform different attacks if you pay for them and MOBAs allow you to always play certain heroes if you pay for them. This is simply NOT the case with Fortnite and is more similar to Overwatch or CSGO in that regard.

In-game purchases are also different than standard loot boxes seen in other games as others have already mentioned. I won't repeat myself but the key takeaway is 1) the game is 3rd person view so the perceived value of the cosmetic items is higher to the purchaser and 2) they're NOT loot boxes.

I can really go on about their battle pass implementation vs the industry standard expansion packs or season passes (that games like COD MW or Apex have copied) or how they continue to innovate and significantly change the gameplay but your mind seems to have been made.

If someone comes in and combines the traits other games have but does it better than all of the rest while continuing to innovate, it is really just copying someone else's strategy? Games like Arma 3 required mods and ones that "borrowed" the gameplay like PUBG and H1Z1 are clunky as hell to play and go for realism vs cartoon violence that Fortnite favors. Those three games are essentially interchangeable unlike Fortnite, which runs really well on everything but really just the Switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for ZZT Tim. That game changed my life when I was starting high school in the mid 90s; it was one of the ways I learnt to really have fun with computers as well as to program and make my own games.

Also, Unreal Tournament still holds a very fond place in my heart. I don't play games these days, but on the very rare occasion I feel like it, that's one of my major go-tos, just for the nostalgia of Facing-Worlds ;)

<comment><USER8> Seconded re ZZT. I remember learning HTML so that I could build my first website, which was a ZZT fan website (there were more). That game literally launched my career as a programmer.

My brother and I would sit at the computer for hours building elaborate 8-bit worlds fueled mainly by our imaginations.

When I was 8 years old, I remember participating in a contest for which Tim Sweeney wrote me a personal letter. I've saved the letter. Here's the link if you're interested: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/12o0qgg2y1uzd30/1990-91%20album%20...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/12o0qgg2y1uzd30/1990-91%20album%2090.JPG?dl=0)

Thanks, Tim! It's not every CEO who goes out of his way to encourage a kid. You inspired me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fortnite is similar to the multiverse in Ready Player One. There have been multiple cross-over events in game, such as:

1) Live DJ show [https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47118989](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47118989)

2) Avengers Endgame promo [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516452/fortnite- avenger...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516452/fortnite-avengers-end- game-marvel-superheroes-crossover-event-infinity-war)

3) Star Wars exclusive trailer [https://www.wired.com/story/fortnite-star- wars/](https://www.wired.com/story/fortnite-star-wars/)

It's proving it is more than just a battle royale shooter..

<comment><USER10> I think the human race will rue the day it took the first step down the path to a metaverse. Fortnite has already show millions of parents how it's impossible to get their kids to disengage from a game which carries a high social cost of not being involved. The incentives are weighed heavily against individual choice and that can only lead to new forms of slavery.

<comment><USER11> Just another darwinian filter. People who overinvest in the metaverse will select themselves out of the gene pool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Sweeney isn't quick to take all the credit for the mostly positive attention > "Fortnite" has attracted, telling The Wall Street Journal his employees > designed and programmed the game, not himself. Whatever his role, however, > Epic has grown leaps and bounds under his leadership.

If it was his decision to make it free-to-play-but-not-pay-to-win, then a good deal of credit is his.

<comment><USER13> A more important decision was to take Fortnite, the paid co-op against zombie game, and add a free battle royale mode to it

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Tim Sweeney has been extremely kind and generous with his time in all my interactions with him dating back about 10 years ago. I wish him all the success in the world.

Him and Epic are getting a lot of hate on Reddit because of the exclusivity deals, but as a developer, I appreciate Epic trying to get the dev/store revenue split more generous for developers. Valve does the standard 70/30, and Epic is doing 88/12 I believe.

<comment><USER15> It isn't just the exclusivity deals, but the manner in which those deals are brought about, often with release promises broken, releases yanked and backers being outright lied to; I do not wish any success to such a business. As a gamer I don't like what the PC gaming landscape is turning into with Epic Games at the forefront of it. As a developer I would expect to consider a wider scope than a revenue split, a big part of which is an ecosystem, platform and tooling.

<comment><USER14> All the extras like platform and tooling is nice, but don't mean anything if you can't support yourself as a dev. Better revenue sharing for devs is one thing that can make a big difference, provided the user base is there. Either it'll be there on Epic one day or Valve will match the revenue share of Epic or both. I'm all for having a competitive option in this space.

I don't think it's entirely Epic's fault about the releases being yanked from Steam or crowd sourced titles making changes. The developers had to sign the contract with Epic and Valve decided that they're too big to fail (which they might be by now) so they didn't try anything to counter.

The one thing that does suck from the gamer perspective is having to use multiple stores. As a dev and gamer I'm okay with this however as it helps the dev community at large in the long run if a viable store contender ever arrives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Personally, I think the best thing to come out of Fortnite is the revenue stream making it feasible for Epic to create its own game store and compete with Valve/Steam.

Steam had been pretty stagnant for years until EGS came along and started poaching exclusives (opinions of this tactic aside) and got them to finally improve their platform.

</comment><comment><USER17> The main thing that Epic appears to be doing is taking a big pile of Chinese money and using it to bribe users with free games as a carrot to go along with their stick of exclusivity agreements.

Even that isn't really novel; EA's Origin store did the same thing, until they gave up on trying.

</comment><comment><USER18> Damage control campaign to restore some of his rep after the Tencent deal?

</comment><comment><USER19> Change doesn't always mean for the better... I think there is a desire to hate on steam and people point to fortnite as the creator of the epic store but steam has provided a reliable and secure platform for literally a decade plus while the epic store has had multiple breaches just this year alone and crashes quite often. The game itself is ok, it exists only because pubg couldn't fix their game though, that and the ability to play it across systems at any age, but to say it's a great game is kind of like saying McDonald's is a great resturant in that it's biggest appeal is that it's cheap, everywhere, and consistent...but that does not make it a great game in ant sense it just makes it a convenient game with market appeal and a payment system that works by getting thousands off of a hand full of people with expendable incomes or a serious problem.

Tl;DR he did alot of things but I don't really think he changed the game industry any more than league of legends or pubg.

</comment><comment><USER20> What's going on with parallelized Vulkan renderer in UE? The Trello item was "archived": [https://trello.com/c/lzLwtb5P/124-vulkan-for-pc-and- linux](https://trello.com/c/lzLwtb5P/124-vulkan-for-pc-and-linux)

Surprising that Google didn't back that effort with the whole Stadia push.

And there is still no Linux support in Epic store.

<comment><USER21> Epic store is currently the turd of all game clients. I have a 1gbit connection and can download a 70gb game in 10m on steam. It took me 3 hours to download borderlands 3. I then copied it to my wife's computer and epic... REDOWNLOADED ALL 63gb AGAIN... over 3 hours...

I wish epic game store didn't exist.

<comment><USER22> I can remember how Steam was getting shit in its early versions too. But if they would wait with the release until the product would be complete/perfect, they would never ship it. So taking the approach of Minimum Viable Product + adding features as they go feels reasonable to me, even for the price of imperfection (a temporarily one, hopefully).

<comment><USER23> When steam came out, there wasn't scalable cloud infrastructure, they didn't have literally billions of dollars, are there weren't any real expectations. Epic games pretty much has no excuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't like arena games, but they have been popular for a while. From what you can't avoid picking up from general gaming media, it's a genre that has been plagued by companies who offered horrible support and user experienced.

It seems like Epic took the best bits of a popular formula and added a decent customer experience to it. Which, if I'm right, is a really nice message.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wish PUBG would not be so slow.

<comment><USER26> I know exactly what you mean, but it's okay. I don't know if there will be a game to fulfil people's dreams of "exactly like pubg but better" for a long time, if ever. Because it was made mostly by people who I believe had never made an FPS/shooter before, it has a lot of problems, but the people were also able to make exactly what they wanted. A lot of the things about pubg that people think are bad, like how "sluggish" movement feels compared to say, csgo, were deliberate design decisions. It takes a really long time to get anywhere near competent even if you're already used to big multiplayer FPSs. E.g. you have to pick up a weapon then pick up ammo then load it. Anyone who wants to clone PUBG will most likely end up making something with a less brutal learning curve because it takes so much time and resources to make such a thing. In short I think such an idiosyncratic, buggy game with such brutally unforgiving gameplay, massive maps, and realistic bullet physics/weapons becoming a hit was a one off. I tried Apex Legends but it is nothing like pubg really. Even since I was a kid, I haven't played anything that sucked me in like PUBG did in 2017. It's so realistic, variable, and engrossing, and it doesn't hold the player's hand at all. Just my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Agreed, but because of Unreal Engine's licensing model change.

</comment><comment><USER28> I stopped reading about 3 paragraphs in when my spidey sense detected a press release...

FWIW</comment>


Become a Facebook-Free Business - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/become-a-facebook-free-business-5bfefc20c09d <comment><USER2> This reminds me of when Elon Musk announced on Twitter [0] that SpaceX and Tesla will be removing their respective pages from Facebook [1].

Having potentially large groups of users deleting their profiles as well as (reputable) businesses deleting their Facebook pages should hopefully serve as a wake-up call to Zuckerberg et al.

[0] [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/977211923719598086?ref_s...](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/977211923719598086?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) and [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/977216157080993793?ref_s...](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/977216157080993793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659656)

</comment><comment><USER3> "We do not assist Facebook in its data collection regime through use of Facebook social Like buttons or by offering Facebook logins."

There is a facebook like button in their blog in the side bar. What am I missing?

<comment><USER4> Might have been after you commented, but at the bottom of the article:

>Apologies for the Facebook Like button on this Medium page. We're just about ready to get off Medium as well, so that'll take care of that!</comment></comment>


Random: Probability, Mathematical Statistics, Stochastic Processes - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/ <comment><USER2> Is there a printable (or kindle) version of this website? I've seen it before and it looks fantastic. Would love to load it on my Kindle and actually work through it.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this note/book compared to stat110. I am reviewing that now and I really like the flow and depth of content.

</comment><comment><USER4> Thank you. Very good and simple explanations on this site. Even better than my text book.

</comment><comment><USER5> This looks nice and well structured</comment>


MIT App Inventor - <AUTHOR> http://code.appinventor.mit.edu/?locale=en&repo=http%3A%2F%2Fappinventor.mit.edu%2Fyrtoolkit%2Fyr%2FaiaFiles%2Fhour_of_code%2FHourOfCode.asc <comment><AUTHOR> I pasted the wrong URL, but I can't edit it. It still works, but it will just throw an unnecessary alert.

The clean URL is [http://code.appinventor.mit.edu](http://code.appinventor.mit.edu)</comment>