Are Commercial Databases Worth It? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/are-commercial-databases-worth-it

<comment><USER4> No.

I've always called this plausible deniability in corporate culture. "It's not _my_ fault the DB is down. I'm on the phone with Oracle right now, they'll have a fix soon". The OSS solution is much riskier. "I chose this _free_ DB, and now it's broken." In large corporations, the first is much safer for the employee, but much more expensive for the corporation.

As a half-serious idea for a company, I thought of IT insurance. Rather than paying support to Oracle, we will audit your solution and charge premiums based on the riskiness of your setup. In case your OSS DB goes down, the insurance company would pay the downtime.

The company would provide two services. 1) I expect our "plausible deniability" would be cheaper than paying Oracle, and 2) we put a pricetag on the reliability of your setup.

<comment><USER5> Isn't this the angle that Redhat, IBM, and now Oracle are taking? I.E. the software is free, but the support contract is gonna cost you.

<comment><USER6> I recently started working with a Fortune 1000 that has a support agreement with RedHat for, among other things, JBoss. The developers and admins rave about the support provided but disparage other vendors to whom much more was paid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I worked at HP in IT. We had literally hundreds of stupid little internal projects. Some were giant, some were 3 aspx pages. All of them used SQL Server or Oracle. But none of them came anywhere close to leveraging the databases.

I can think of only one app that was large enough and complex enough to really require a "commercial" db, and it was talking with SAP.... ohh, and it ran into constant problems.

What I don't understand is that other than features, the other argument is "Support". I have never seen microsoft get on the phone with a guy for free (yes you can pay...) and help out. But you know what, you can pay for a guy to help you out with postgres.

And you know, by going with proprietary databases, that cost so much money, there were severe restrictions on getting a database. They were in the hands of another team, who took weeks or months to get us setup. I know a part of that is server management, but another part was cost cutting on licenses. Remember that a small cause can have a very large effect in a corporate culture.

<comment><USER8> The "support" argument is almost always a bad one. Support for infrastructure products is never free; it's sometimes bundled with the license fee, but it's never free. Support is available in the form of paid consultants for any popular piece of open-source infrastructure. What commercial products DO have is _official_ support, which provides some degree of consistency. Even that isn't a strong argument though; it's easy to tell good consultants from bad by asking for references.

<comment><USER9> My limited experience with "official" support channels is that they're manned by people trained to be "tech support" rather than actual experts on the subject.

<comment><USER10> Actually, I've talked with quite a few techs in Microsoft Professional Support that know what they are talking about. But you do have to pay a few hundred dollars per incident for that.

It's nice to know they are there when you're doing a hairy Exchange migration...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Where a lot of people make their mistake is in spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on commercial databases and then doing nothing more than simple SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT type operations with them, bury them under an ORM and try to pretend they aren't there.

Can you get your money's worth out of a database like Oracle? I think you absolutely can if you USE the features it comes with. If you don't want to do that, or don't need those features, then you are throwing your money away.

<comment><USER12> CONNECT BY PRIOR on the other hand can be a life saver.

There are projects where I really love using Oracle (and to a lesser degree SQL Server). It has everything to do with features that solve problems.

I loathe DB2 though. Also, there are some weird smaller commercial databases like Pervasive that seem to add nothing but difficult interfaces.

<comment><USER13> > CONNECT BY PRIOR on the other hand can be a life saver.

FWIW, the latest beta release of PostgreSQL supports recursive queries (using the SQL standard WITH RECURSIVE rather than CONNECT BY, but still).

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the tip!

The list of features that justify using a commercial database keeps getting shorter each year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Enterprise world is so full of insanity that this is just a non-issue. The company is going to waste a lot of money but who cares? You, as a developer, are lucky enough to work with Oracle, which is an excellent db. Here, I am forced to fill excel sheets for deployments (I have to write "compile this package here" or "copy/paste the executable here" -- no kidding), which are checked by a committee on tuesday and executed on the next thursday. No deployments are allowed in other days of week, except for very critical stuff. So, the insanity is everywhere, and choosing the wrong database vendor is just the top of the iceberg.

<comment><USER15> Just add TPS reports and you're working at Initech.

Have you ever been on a day-long 7-person email conversation to change one string to another in a text file, and 6 of those people were IT people? I feel your pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've used MySQL extensively for personal projects (all of mine have been at a pretty small scale). I've also used both Oracle and SQL Server for projects at large companies.

There's probably not much of an advantage in the database engine itself, but the SQL Server suite shined in 2 areas: analytics and reporting. The 2 add-on components made large-scale data mining & model-building much simple, and also automated the generation & delivery of complex reports tracking many metrics. I could probably do both with MySQL, but only with much more effort.

<comment><USER17> "I could probably do both with MySQL, but only with much more effort."

I know you could. You know you could. Most of the people here know you could.

But your boss doesn't want to bet on you. That would require him to manage you. Easier to spend a bunch of money through a capital expenditure request to get a piece of commercial software that already does it. When your boss(es) don't get the job done, it's easier to blame a vendor than an employee.

<comment><USER18> Or maybe said boss would spend less just buying software than paying an employee to duplicate an maintain the functionality. For a large enough company, one software license is not that big of an expense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In tandem with the entire "Buying a $BigCompany database never hurt anyone" and "software vs support" debate, a couple of specific points I'd like to make..

\- Security

Securing data in a database is pretty important if you're dealing with any kind of sensitive data. Levels of sensitivity may depend on what you do and may vary over SSNs to sales numbers for next quarter. AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) - PGSql/MySQL don't really offer concrete solutions to protect data - apart from common sense like patches, secure passwords, et al. Now look at offerings from the big co's. Companies of any kind will feel more comfortable with these.

\- Auditing/Compliance

Are you a public corporation? Semi-large? Do you have payroll or other info in a database? Enter Sarbanes Oxley! Easier to have solutions built by the db vendors rather than deploy 3rd party stuff.

<comment><USER20> _PGSql/MySQL don't really offer concrete solutions to protect data - <USER2> from common sense like patches, secure passwords, et al. Now look at offerings from the big co's._

You're comparing commercial databases _favorably_ to Open Source databases on the grounds of security? This differs vastly from my experience. Oracle is an impenetrable mess:

\- do or don't use TNSLSNR

\- if you use TNSLSNR, do or do not secure it with password protection

\- my experience with Oracle has been that port allocation is rather nondeterministic. I've attempted to perform identical installations several times and ended up with TNS and the databases on weird ports for reasons I can't explain.

\- user management of oracle behaves differently on different platforms, i think. IIRC it integrates with NT credentials on Windows, and UNIX credentials for certain connection situations, but there's also a username/password file that controls who can connect

\- you issue alter password commands in unquoted SQL. Because of this you don't get to use things like mixed case (?) or spaces or most punctuation characters

\- but you CAN use quotes around the password, in which case it behaves sanely. I didn't even know this until I looked it up it's so uncommon.

\- Oracle attempted to market Oracle 9 as "Unbreakable": <http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-5808928-7.html> . They had enjoyed a pass from hackers since systems/network folks tend to bury the DB at the back of the architecture, rarely accessible on the public internet. After those shenanigans security minded DBAs had not the best time of their careers as they had dozens of security patches per quarter for a while.

Perhaps the commercial guys have security "features", such as row based security or encryption, that the free products don't have. While it's surely better to have those than not, I'm not convinced applying those proprietary features to an otherwise insecure design is satisfactory "defense in depth". You can, however, have sufficient defense in depth without those features.

Sarbanes Oxley isn't too bad: the crux of it is that you have to enumerate your controls and stick to them. I understand PCI compliance is another matter. I don't know much about it, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is the issue really commercial DBs? It seems like most projects that use a (SQL) DB are solving a problem they shouldn't have, and doing it in an overly complicated manner.

If a project truly requires ACID to the point there's a sensible worry about the disk holding the right data, I'm pretty sure I'd save money (and hair) paying for a medium server and a license to deal with that (particular) data. It's really rare to run into a problem that requires both that level of reliability _and_ needs performance beyond what a medium server can reasonably handle. I think most projects are far far more likely to screw the data in some other way, so one could question if it's worthwhile.

I'm saying this having had to implement true ACID transactions (and replication) myself. It's a ton of work getting it right through all of the layers of libraries, os, filesystems, controllers, and drives. It's hard to trust user-level programs to be able to do it given an arbitrary stack below them. I place more trust in a system that can cut through some of those layers (or call across campus and control how some of those layers work) and work with particular hardware.

I place even more trust in someone screwing the data up at a higher level and it really not mattering nearly as much as people make it out to anyway. Even in "critical" cases like storing financial transactions, it usually just results in people having to call around or get in and fixing a few things.. which is WAY cheaper than the huge cost to lower the odds by 90%, and you've got to be prepared to do that anyway.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not sure where he dug up that price chart. We run Small Business Server and it gets us the whole OS, along with Enterprise Edition on 4 processors for like $2,000 all in. That's what, 10 billable hours to pay for it? Cheaper than the box it's running on.

SQL Server is cheap, and like he said, it's miles better than the free options.

<comment><USER23> That price chart is consistent with what I've seen in projects at big companies I've worked with. SQL Server costs of over $20k/box are normal - <USER3> that applies to UAT and test boxes also.

The real danger of using expensive proprietary databases is that because of the cost per box you tend to design your projects to use one big expensive server instead of multiple small, cheap servers. The big server approach eventually hits a scalability ceiling and then you have to pay for X more big expensive servers and re-architect a bit. This may sound absurd but I've seen it happen more than once. The killer feature of the free, open-source databases is as much the "free" part as it is the "open source" part.

<comment><USER22> Are you honestly arguing that $2,000 in software costs is a big enough price tag to sway your technology decision?

We run a box that cost ~$4k all in ($2k hardware + the aforementioned software costs), and stash it in a cage that costs $400/month to keep it connected power and a fat pipe. Assuming it lasts us 4 years, that's $23,200 in server costs over the life of the box.

Now assume we'd skimped on a LAMP stack and pocked ourself a cool two grand in software costs. At the end of that 4 years, we'd still have spent $21,200 keeping our servers alive.

And it scales out exactly the same way. We can throw hardware at the problem every bit as easily as you. It's just, what? 9% more expensive over time, depending on your math. And that's on top of a ridiculously low price tag anyway.

Web servers are dirt cheap, regardless of which stack you go with. The price difference between commercial and free databases are just noise. In the end, it's certainly not something you should consider when choosing a technology.

<comment><USER23> No, you miss my point in two distinct ways. $20k per server is middle of the road for a MS SQL in a big enterprise. It's on the low side for Oracle. It happens all the time; I've seen it (and argued against it.)

The other point, though, is that it's not the $2k or $20k in software costs. Really, to a big enterprise, $20k is nothing. The real problem is that it ties you down to making architectural decisions because of the cost of the software. Say you're right and you can license MS SQL for only $2k. What happens when you start partitioning your data and end up with 50 servers? Suddenly that $2k is $100k... or if you're on the enterprise plan it's $20k * 50 = $1,000,000. And I'm not speculating. I've lived thorough this scenario more than once.

Also, I object to the phrase "skimped on a LAMP stack." It's not skimping. Cost factors aside, the LAMP stack is better.

<comment><USER22> I actually do get your point. Let me paraphrase it to ensure we're on the same page:

      - you have seen organizations pay $20k for SQL Server
      - 50 boxes like that will cost a lot of money.
      - SQL Server is actually worse than (at least one of) the free options

Here's my experience:

      - I've actually purchased SQL server, bundled with the OS and all other necessary software for $2k.
      - 50 boxes like that won't cost significantly more than they would with free software, if you consider the dominant cost of  operating it, which is hosting fees.
      - SQL Server is actually really good.

So yeah, I imagine that people overpay for SQL Server all the time, and they certainly pay a ton for Oracle. They don't need to though. Microsoft is really good at making sure that businesses use their software, and they'll find a way to price it in a way you can afford.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My favorite phrase in this article was "four-dimensional enraged-leprechaun hypercube visualization".

</comment><comment><USER17> "Well sure, you spend a ridiculous amount of money on IT. Ever wonder why?"

So you have someone to blame, who is tough to identify with open source software.

Never forget, in many large enterprises, these decisions are _not_ technical, they are political.

<comment><USER25> _these decisions are not technical, they are political._

Wrong, they're financial. The only factor is what the auditors will sign off on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yes. If you are a large organization and have the money for licenses and DBAs, they're _definitely_ worth it.

Not everyone is a startup. Not everyone cares about clever hacks and rag-tag scalability and bragging about how they scaled up to 10k transactions per second on YouTube. Sometimes you just want to throw $10M at the fucking thing and have it work so everyone in your company gets the data they need.

<comment><USER27> It also means non-techies in big organisations can hire people by certification and have a reasonable idea of what they're getting. "We run Oracle."

<comment><USER28> I think this is a huge part of the issue. I have worked professionally on the big three commercial rdbms (DB2 distributed - not mainframe -, SQL Server, and Oracle). I consider myself a SQL hacker with some DBA experience and knowledge, mainly around DB design and performance tuning.

I simply don't care what rdbms I coding to, I can tweak to leverage quirkiness in T-SQL or PL/SQL if needed or advantageous to a project. And, <whispering>, PL/pgSQL.

A common experience for me when job searching is to apply for a job where, for example, they are primarily looking for Oracle PL/SQL development. I've been doing SQL coding for roughly 8 years, the last 2 years or so have been primarily in Oracle PL/SQL. I have been turned down for interviews with feedback that says "oh, we need someone with 5 years of Oracle development work."

If it's techies doing the resume reviews, I always get at least an interview. Sometimes even then, I have to sell the fact that SQL skills transfer nicely between rdbms harder than I should.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> IT and most departments have a budget, the more you spend the more budget you get next year. Nobody tries to reduce budget by saving here and there. Au contraire, you have to come up with ways to increase headcounts and needed resources so you get more budget next year.

Unfortunately that's how the corporate world works.</comment>


Motivate Your Employees By Eliminating Monetary Rewards - <AUTHOR> http://blog.7geese.com/2013/05/29/recognize-your-employees-without-monetary-rewards/

<comment><USER2> Say it with me, everyone:

FUCK YOU, PAY ME.

If I work hard and add more value to the company, I want a raise, and if you don't give me a raise, I'm going to leave your company and go somewhere else.

As a member of "Generation Y", I "crave" positive feedback as much as I "crave" a hole in my head. I'm not working for warm fuzzies. I'm working for _money_.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well this article talks about eliminating rewards like gift cards as a way to motivate people. You are entitled to get a fair salary that you deserve and there is no doubt in that.</comment>


Startup School Doodle Notes 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://startupnotes.org

<comment><USER2> These notes are extremely well done. Thanks.

Starting a company is not the hardest thing you can do. It's not even close. Nor should your company be your religion. If you think it should, reread David Foster Wallace's Kenyon College speech.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Thomas.

I'll keep doing these sketch notes because they're valuable to me, however one of the negatives is that it rewards speakers who use hyperbole and one-liners.

I also mean these to be a companion; everyone should watch the videos.

<comment><USER3> Fantastic job with these! And I would be totally okay with you paraphrasing some of the speakers to summarize their key points in a short blurb and illustration. I realize this more work for you, and perhaps some possible misinterpretations, but I think the value would be higher than any unintended consequences.

In any case, thank you for creating these!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Absolutely love these. Bought the physical printed book version last year and keep it on my desk for inspiration whenever I'm working on something and feel like the world is working against me.

Will there be printed versions of this year's book?

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably not – last year, I only did it because I was inspired by Watsi's talk and wanted to try to give back somewhow. But it was a logistical nightmare; it's really hard to get small runs of high quality book printing done for a reasonable cost.

<comment><USER5> startup idea? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thank you for putting the book / website up on Github[1]. I would love to see more notes shared using the template you've provided.

1\. [https://github.com/gkoberger/startupnotes](https://github.com/gkoberger/startupnotes)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is fantastic. Great work. Random question: Is there an app/software you used to do these doodles? I'd love to do something similar but I'm not as artistically gifted. Thanks!

<comment><USER8> I work for FiftyThree.

As Gregory mentioned, he used Paper for part of these. If you are interested in trying it out, I recommend this video put together by Brad Ovenell-Carter - he does a great job of giving tips even if you aren't artistic: [http://www.ovenell-carter.com/uncategorized/sketchnote- prime...](http://www.ovenell-carter.com/uncategorized/sketchnote-primer/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Gregory, you've done it yet again. Amazing work. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER10> What a brilliant lot of notes, insightful inspiring and nice to see some great minds feel a lot like we all do at times. I got a lot out of that cheers.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is the what's up thing correct? When you have the numbers of people WhatsApp has, you can't remove features (b/c 0.1% = millions of people)

I recall WA made many efforts to support multiple platforms, etc. but not sure how far to take this comment.. (i.e. Facebook does it, Google does it, etc)

<comment><AUTHOR> They do remove features, they just have to think long and hard about it. He even mentioned a few features they're thinking of removing (such as the broadcast feature).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very nice. From the outside, its fabulous to get a better picture of the scope of startup school. TY.

</comment><comment><USER13> I came across this only today and just want to say it's excellent. Beautifully done. Thanks for putting it out.

</comment><comment><USER14> Good one! startup school was awesome this year! great talks and learnings!

</comment><comment><USER15> Hate to be that guy (pedantic), but this stuck out like a sore thumb: 'Distill your values ... "Collabtoration" ... '

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Will fix :)

EDIT: fixed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The page shows up incorrectly in ipad for me.

anyone else have the same issue?

</comment><comment><USER17> Hang in there, Kitty!

Nice formatting.</comment>


Robot arm can catch flying objects [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0513/Heads-up%21-Robot-arm-can-catch-flying-objects.-video

<comment><USER2> Really sweet.

It makes sense that robots should learn similar to how humans learn, by analyzing data from many trials and then adjusting the method used to achieve the goal. Instead of manually trying to think of the algorithm. It seems like all AI should be done this way, by learning.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet another example of cool stuff done at EPFL. (Notice the three time-of- flight cameras in the background.)</comment>


Comcast to Place a 250 gigabyte-a-month Cap on Internet Downloads - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/technology/30comcast.html?em <comment><USER2> I agree with Protophore. Comcast has to know darn well that broadband traffic trends upward, and within a couple years this "data tax" is going to be sucking money from everybody - Bill Gates to Aunt Edna.

If the rest of the telecoms follow suit, it will soon put an end to the concept of the Internet as a democratizer and turn it into another class-based system.

Because customers' monthly fees go into R&D, there's an implied contract that their services will continue to improve. This is a violation of that implied (not written or legally binding) contract.

It'll be a scathing indictment of the state of U.S. capitalism if a competitor doesn't step in and offer customers better service for lower costs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like a bad polocy for all users to me. "The new system should only impact some 14,000 customers out of Comcast's 14.1 million users (i.e. the top 0.1%)". That may be true now but as people start to download more movies, videos, photos, etc I can see that percentage going up. I say it's time to start boycotting Comcast if/when this goes into effect.</comment>


Ask HN: Idea on incentivizing people to vote on new articles - <AUTHOR>

This may already be the case, but I was wondering, why doesn't HN incentivize people to vote on newly submitted articles?  Incentives are clear for people who SUBMIT articles, but not for those who help discover the article by voting for it first, second and third.
IDEA:  The person who is the first to up-vote a newly submitted article should be rewarded for "taking the leap", and  get 0.5 karma points for each additional vote after him/her.
The third voter should get 0.25 karma points for each additional vote after him/her.
This would incentivize people to read newly submitted articles, and to take the leap and voting for newly submitted articles that are good - speeding up the discovery process for everyone else.
One risk is that people purely looking for karma points would just vote for every article they see, making "3" votes the new "1".
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Is this a solution seeking a problem? What's broken that this fixes?

<comment><AUTHOR> hah - interesting way to put it....

I thought this could be a good way to convert more people to view the "new" submissions and evaluate them. As of right now, there's no reward for going through new submissions and evaluating them for others?

<comment><USER2> And yet, somehow, posts still wind up on the front page. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough! :0)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are coding bootcamps a waste of time? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Quite a loaded question ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)) Why do you think bootcamps are a scam? Reading past HN answers, e.g. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341716](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341716), I haven't seen somebody saying it was a total waste or they shouldn't have done it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Should have phrased it as a waste not a scam.

<comment><USER3> I suppose it depends on what the focus is. I've heard of bootcamps cramming as many technologies as possible into their course to make people seem employable. It's definitely not worth it to have sporadic surface-level knowledge.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:  How to change Apple ID to an email address so I can use Find My iPhone? - <AUTHOR>

The Find My iPhone feature only works with Apple IDs that are email addresses.<p>Is there some way for me to change my Apple ID to an email address? <comment><USER2> You need to talk to an applecare person if I recall. I consolidated two accounts into one a while back - it took them about five minutes.</comment>


Apple opens up iAds for app developers - <AUTHOR> http://developer.apple.com/iad/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what the pricing is yet, but I put in an inquiry.</comment>


Scientists:Explaining science will not fix things - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/explaining-science-wont-fix-information-illiteracy.html <comment><AUTHOR> "Rather than fill the information deficit by building an arsenal of facts, scientists should instead consider how they deploy their knowledge. They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions. " \- Apparently, doing science alone is not enough any more.

</comment><comment><USER2> This article appears to begin with the proposal that "scientists" could/should describe a homogeneous group with a uniform (settled) view on what could be classified as partly political rather than purely scientific issues ("bizarre and inaccurate ideas about science, from climate change and vaccines to guns and genetically modified organisms").

It's an odd place to start. Given that scientists are also humans, my null hypothesis would be inhomogeneity.</comment>


40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities - <AUTHOR> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ <comment><USER2> I wish this study would have first asked the question "Should the government be allowed to limit free speech?", record that answer, and then ask "Should the government be allowed to limit free speech if it is offensive?", record that answer, and then ask "Should the government be allowed to limit free speech if it is offensive to the majority or those that are "privileged" in some way?", record that answer, and then lastly ask "Should the government be allowed to limit free speech if it is offensive to minorities?"

<comment><USER3> Those numbers would be interesting to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's got to be the most depressing statistic I've seen all day. It's terrifying how we've fought for years for freedom of speech and rights, then this generation seemingly want to chuck it all away for political correctness.

<comment><USER5> Still though you could write it another way - 60% of millenials support the rights of free speech even when it is offensive to minorities.

It's not so dire. That's a solid majority.

<comment><USER3> That's how I look at it. Those of us who cherish freedom are winning. :)

In a survey but not the country as a whole... (sighs)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I must be one of the minority that finds it offensive when people talk about limiting speech...

<comment><USER2> Me too, but I'll support their right to speech about limiting free speech. Once they try to pass something as law, then the gloves come off.

<comment><USER7> The people who want to ban speech justify it by saying things like "tolerance doesn't include tolerance of intolerance." I wonder how they'd react to passage of a law criminalizing their discussion of limiting free speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Glad it didn't get over 40%. I'd hate to be creatively analyzing all of my writing or speech trying to guess if someone might take offence in a million different ways. Burden should be on them to grow up and accept people will have opinions they don't like.

Very good illustration here:

[http://jokes2go.com/poems/5205.html](http://jokes2go.com/poems/5205.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Most millennials I know are ill-informed on all matters of politics/civil liberties. As such, this does not surprise me one bit.

<comment><USER9> Would you say the same of "non-whites?" Because 40% of them said the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Alternative headline: 40% of Non-White OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

</comment><comment><USER10> Mala tempora.</comment>


Dutch hospitals to drop U.S. body brokers, cite ethical concerns - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-bodies-dutch-exclusive/exclusive-dutch-hospitals-to-drop-u-s-body-brokers-cite-ethical-concerns-idUSKBN1O70RT <comment><USER2> The Dutch government (such as UWV) is using US cloud providers from which they cannot be sure to get privacy from. The Netherlands should become more independent from the USA, given the mutual benefit of allies is becoming more thin.

<comment><USER3> Why do you think US cloud providers cannot give privacy?

<comment><USER4> Because they operate in another nation and are puppets to their government. What do you think will happen when the NSA asks for full access or when the US becomes enemy with the Netherlands?

Government and military cannot be outsourced overseas.

<comment><USER5> > _military cannot be outsourced overseas_

A lot of countries buy arms from the US. In fact I might even hazard to guess that the US is the world's largest arms supplier. Perhaps you are right, maybe the missiles will not work if fired in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER6> > Perhaps you are right, maybe the missiles will not work if fired in the > wrong direction.

Dont know anything about missiles, but jets wont work. At least not the Eurofighter for some reason.

[https://www.krone.at/568118](https://www.krone.at/568118)

Apparently an NSA contractor has to type in a key before every start.

>Damit die 15 Eurofighter auch wirklich starten dürfen, zahlte Österreichs Bundesheer in drei Jahren 1,5 Millionen Euro an eine private US- Sicherheitsfirma: Jetzt wurden die Kosten für jene am Fliegerhorst Zeltweg stationierten zwei "Zivilisten" bestätigt, die jedes Aufsteigen eines Jets mit einem aktuellen US-"Crypto-Schlüssel" für die Navigation und die Freund-Feind- Erkennung zulassen müssen.

>In order for the 15 Eurofighters to start, Austria's federal army paid 1.5 million euros over three years to a private US security company. Now, the costs for those two "civilians" stationed at the Zeltweg air base have been confirmed, who have to allow every start with current US-"Crypto-Keys" for navigation and friend or foe identification.

The ministry of defense denies that the two Americans from a not named US company are NSA contractors. They claim the jets would fly without but without encrypted navigation and communication. He also mentions the same situation for Sweden and Switzerland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't the first time. There was a scandal with blood donors. Its illegal in the Netherlands to sell your blood but blood banks were importing blood from the US.

Poor people shouldn't have to resort to selling their body.

<comment><USER8> Since the subject is the Netherlands, I have a hard time reconciling the position that it should be legal to sell one's body (prostitution) but illegal to sell one's body (blood, marrow, cadavers, organs upon death).

<comment><USER9> Sure those two things _sound_ similar when you write them like this, but they're completely different things. Prostitution is just another form of labor, with above-average health & safety dangers, and where legalization helps reduce those dangers. Selling body parts involves huge health risks and (beyond blood & marrow), permanent body damage and/or death of the seller. This is not something you absolutely don't want people to feel pressured into. It scales up to serious abuse and suffering.

<comment><USER8> I think "completely different" is overstating it. If the paternalistic instinct is to say people who sell body parts are prone to abuse, certainly the same can be said about prostitution. Similarly, if the average person is ill equipped to gauge risks and bear the consequences of poor risk management, then the calculus applies in sex (STIs, pregnancy, rape, etc.) and in organ donation.

Though the most interesting organ-based financial instruments would be rights to harvest organs post mortem, which several people in this thread seem to be overlooking.

And no matter how intellectually satisfying it would be if it were true, I don't think Western culture (or psychology in general) agrees with you that sex is just another service like computer repair. We don't have special categories of crimes for forced computer repair at gunpoint for instance. And we don't shame and fire overbearing bosses for pressuring employees into illicit computer repair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apropos the US body market: there's a cartel that controls who gets body parts for research; life science startups find it tough to get human tissue for physiological research as the big companies and big research institutes end up with priority access.

It's a strange omission as all the other resources (vivaria, lab equipment, chemicals, APIs etc are easily purchasable).

<comment><USER11> True, I read an article about it a while back. Things are still the same

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Although the declared value of the head on the customs form was $25, the > going rate for a human head in the U.S. market is currently around $500, > Reuters found

<comment><USER13> So how does one actually buy a head? I need one for instagram.

<comment><USER14> Im sure you can contact Medicure on some .onion website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One paragraph:

> From 2012 to 2016, according to manifest records reviewed by Reuters, > MedCure shipped body parts valued at a total of more than $500,000 from the > United States to the Netherlands. MedCure said it helps connect donors and > scientific, research and medical entities. "We are an accredited and > regulated institution and adhere to the best-in-class industry standards for > safety ethics, and transparency," the company said in a statement to > Reuters.

Followed by:

> Freek Dikkers, the professor of ear, nose and throat medicine at the AMC > whose department bought the heads, said it was stopping after learning that > the company solicits donors at hospices and old age homes and that its > former owners earned millions from the trade. Dikkers said that was > "unacceptable."

Something does not add up. How can you be a champion of "transparency" while your clients ignore (or pretend to ignore?) how you source the parts?

<comment><USER16> Matching a transparency standard doesn't mean you're transparent. It means you successfully ticked boxes that should provide incentives for transparency.

<comment><USER17> It's sad you're being downvoted, since your comment explain exactly what is going on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > many brokers offer donor families free cremation in return for donating a > body

Wait, what do they cremate then if they get to keep the body??

<comment><USER2> The body gets "scavenged", and then it gets cremated. The ash people get in an urn or necklace is very, very little amount of the total amount of ash.

I carry a donor, and I want to be cremated as well (since I find it pathetic to use land after I passed away). If I die, I want whoever is left on Earth to benefit from my legacy. Mainly my family, but also others who are in need. I'd only be grateful if someone else would do the same for me if they'd pass away.

This is why I support the modernisation that being a donor is opt-out in 2019 instead of opt-in (in NL).

As far as I'm concerned, those who are donor get priority over those who are not donor, to avoid leeches (akin to people who don't vaccinate who benefit from those who do).

<comment><USER18> > since I find it pathetic to use land after I passed away

You aen't using it up. You, or your heirs, etc., just rent the plot for a while. Where I live every resident is entitled to a plot in the local churchyard for twenty years, if you, or your family, want more then you pay a fee for more years. The town has been in existence for at least two hundred years yet the size of the graveyard increases only as the population increases. My wife's ashes were buried there last year and there is room on the gravestone for my name and that of my children if they want it so it could be occupied for another hundred years. However, it is more likely that twenty years after my death the plot will be reused by another family.

This occupies about one square metre. The house I live in occupies about 900 square metres of land so I don't think my wife's ashes are occupying a disproportionate amount of space.

Don't take this as criticism, just another point of view.

<comment><USER19> In the US, burial plots being for a single individual _forever_ is the norm. Cemeteries basically build up a fund to pay for maintenance in perpetuity. What you describe is more the norm in Europe, I don't know about elsewhere.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/17/603360426/how-...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/17/603360426/how- american-cemeteries-promise-to-keep-your-grave-forever)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For details on US body brokers, read [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa- bodi...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-bodies- brokers/)

</comment><comment><USER21> >Although the declared value of the head on the customs form was $25, the going rate for a human head in the U.S. market is currently around $500

Occam's razor explanation for this would be the harvesting of a little extra profit, by defrauding the customs tax system.

</comment><comment><USER22> >The hospitals told Reuters in recent weeks they made their decisions on ethical grounds. The move comes amid investigations by U.S. law enforcement into some so-called body brokers - companies that obtain the dead, often through donation, dissect them and sell the parts for profit.

Is this what peak capitalism looks like?

<comment><USER23> What really gets me is the "for profit", especially since these are organ donors.

They get their "merchandise" for free from the last goodwill of people. If not, apparently they'll offer free cremation to families to convince them to agree to donating the organs— since they have to dispose of the corpse anyway this is probably just an expense they'd have to pay regardless.

And then they sell this donation for profit. This is baffling.

<comment><USER24> Which isn't that different to how many "charitable" organizations are actually for-profit organizations.

Another example of this would be clothing donations. Most people donate clothing with the expectation that it will be given to the needy for free. When in reality, these second-hand clothes will usually be sold to traders who then retail them in developing countries [0], undercutting the domestic competition who can't compete with the massive influx of "free" clothing.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/sustainable...](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/sustainable-fashion-blog/2015/feb/13/second-hand-clothes-charity- donations-africa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How about some rabbis trafficking body parts?

[https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/07/the-arrests-of- rabb...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/07/the-arrests-of-rabbis-who- trafficked-body-parts-uncover-more-complicated-issues.html)

"three New Jersey mayors, two state assemblymen and five rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested in New Jersey"

Mayor Peter J. Cammarano III of Hoboken, Mayor Dennis Elwell of Secaucus, both Democrats; Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith of Jersey City, also a Democrat; and Assemblyman Daniel M. Van Pelt, a Republican from Ocean County.</comment>


The Threat to the Mac: The Growing Popularity of Non-Native Apps - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/2018/02/non_native_apps_threat_to_mac <comment><USER2> I just checked and I don't have a single app installed from Mac App Store. It always felt weird to go through spaghetti of prompts to get basic functionality available. I'm happy with apps like 1Password, Fantastical having their own autoupdate functionality. I'm happy that I don't need to think about having some apps on Mac App Store, and some someplace else (Docker or Microsoft Office aren't even available on Mac App Store).

So yeah, choosing between using `brew cask` and Mac App Store — former clearly wins.

</comment><comment><USER3> Even Apple can't be bothered to make quality Mac apps for all their software. There is no News app for the Mac, nor a homekit app. And the Mac App Store doesn't feel like a native app to me.

However, it doesn't really bother me. I'm extremely happy using macOS. Hardware is excellent as well. Companies hawking their wares without decent client apps, like Slack, don't get my sympathy. I'll use it when I must, and the minute that need drops away, then it's gone from my system.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have never used the Mac app store. I didn't use or want to use the itunes store, either. Apple's steady march toward sandboxing and mobile-os-like software control feels paternalistic and annoying; it makes the platform less interesting. It's my machine, not Apple's, and I don't care what they think I ought to do or not do with it.

I still have a Mac mini on my desk at home, but I stopped wanting to "upgrade" its OS a few years ago, because each new release just seemed to have more flashy crap bundled in for Apple's benefit and not mine. It has felt more and more like a sales funnel for services I don't want to use, and wouldn't want Apple to provide even if I did want them.

When that Mac dies, I doubt I'll replace it; that will be the first time in over thirty years that I won't be regularly using at least one Mac at home or work.

</comment><comment><USER5> The rise of the web app is basically what allowed OS X to be at all competitive with Windows, since more and more software was being written for the browser as the platform. If it weren't for the web, OS X would not have become a viable platform. I feel like the fact that browsers freed us from this OS dependence is underappreciated.

</comment><comment><USER6> I never really felt why I should log in to download free apps. I hate how software has to implement their own update mechanisms when there's a native alternative solution built in to the OS.

Which is a shame since I love using package managers on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER7> > ...it might as well not exist, because the only remaining thing that would > distinguish it from other desktop OSes is iCloud integration.

This is truly scary when one of your weakest products (features) is supposedly your main differentiator.</comment>


Ask HN Rubyists: What's one gem that you wish existed, but doesn't? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I posted this in another thread - it is nothing groundbreaking but would be a good small project for someone to tackle:

Simple Ruby gem I was surprised didn't exist (that I could find): `validates_twitter_username`

Given user input for username, ensure it is valid. Two levels of verification - one would be probably regex based that the username matches twitter restrictions (valid characters, length less than 15), one that pings twitter to confirm the account is registered. Appropriate ActiveRecord errors etc

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm actually doing something similar for a project I'm working on, I might bundle it and release it as a gem then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Some kind of admin/logging console for cron jobs (specifically integration with the `whenever` gem). I have a few jobs that run daily/nightly/weekly and I would love to be able to get simple information like: when was the last time this ran, when is the next scheduled time, were there any errors, what was the output.

Cronjob logging and monitoring seems to be pretty tricky and involves a lot of finicky Unix magic, so a nice wrapper would be appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have some ideas. Contact me in my profile if you want.</comment>


I haven't programmed in a *long* time... - <AUTHOR>

Former Web Dev/Design student hired to work in the Web Department...moved into the Art Department to use a niche software doing Print Design. Good job, but I worry I'm in a bad career move. Not ready to leave yet though.
What I'm asking is: if you were to hire someone tomorrow for a Junior Developer position and be there mentor, what would you consider it important they learn to help you and the business, and how would you help them learn it? I realize it varies across industries and that's what I want; different industry responses. I haven't found a niche to start exploring, and that's what I'm looking for...that and some knowledge resources to do so. Knowledge resources, projects, anything. I just miss programming. <comment><USER2> I am in precisely that position right now- being a mentor to a junior developer. We need him to do client-side web development, specifically for presenting multimedia for online language learning. Incidentally, it's also a student job- my guy has taken one formal programming course, and this is his first real job experience.

There are many levels of things that I need him to learn. Some of them are "can you actually write code?" issues. If you've previously done Web Dev, I assume that's not a problem for you. But, the next step above that is "can you understand more than one paradigm?" E.g., can you only understand imperative, classical OO code, or can you also write declarative and functional-style code, and can you recognize when to use one or the other? I don't really have good resources for that kind of thing, though I wish I did. That's where a lot of the mentoring comes in.

Those things are important partly because of new-ish additions to JavaScript, like the functional-style array methods (map, forEach, some, etc.). So now I want to know, how familiar are you with the JavaScript "standard library" in different browsers? And how familiar are you with JavaScript design, like the Module Pattern. For that kind of stuff, MDN (Mozilla Developer Network) is my favorite reference, along with an ability to Google.

Then I want to know if you can use the DOM. Again, MDN, along with sites like html5rocks and caniuse.com, are great. But I also want to know if read and understand specs; partially for reference when other documentation doesn't exist, partly so you can implement them (either because we need a polyfill for a standard that the browser is missing or because the boss has just given you a spec for a new product). I don't know of good resources for that, except for just reading a lot of specs.

My methods for helping learn so far are basically just assigning lots of little tasks that shouldn't be too difficult or take too long, and then when it does turn out to be too difficult and take too long, using pair programming to walk him through solving the problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> Learn one language, any language, and build something with it. Self motivated autodidacts with even embryonic skill sets make excellent hires, particularly if they are open to mentoring. A mentor will point you in the direction of structures and resources to make your life of independent problem solving easier. Beware the guru. A good mentoring-training relationship renders the mentor obsolete within 12-18 months, though mutual affection may seed an enduring professional relationship.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't speak for others but I like finding people who are self efficient and having to spend time mentoring them beyond the little nudge here and there is not something I am looking for personally. I have hired people who require a lot of training and mentoring and people who don't and honestly, its a larger headache most of the time for those who need hand holding. So just from experience, I'm less open to hiring people who can't figure out how to solve problems themselves.</comment>


Dave Pell: Do What You're Great At  - <AUTHOR> http://davenetics.com/2008/06/do-what-youre-great-at/ <comment><USER2> Title should probably mention that this is about Yahoo...</comment>


Apple is actually asking for 100% of SaaS mobile revenue - <AUTHOR> http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2011/02/apple-is-actually-asking-for-100-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhyDoesEverythingSuck+%28Why+does+everything+suck%3F%29 <comment><USER2> As I added in the content section, I think that SaaS providers have the leeway to pass along the "Apple tax" to iOS users and thus embarrass Apple a little bit here. I'd like to see a service at least try to make an "iOS plan" - if a service is normally $10/mo, create a separate plan (that would be the only way of accessing the content for iOS users) that costs enough to offset Apple's take. This plan would cost the same both on the service provider's website and in the app, and would be the only way of accessing the service's content in the app, meeting Apple's rules... it would just be conspicuously more expensive than the version for all other platforms.

I'm not normally the self-promoting or blogging type, but since I'm an enthusiastic user of many of these iOS services (Rdio, Netflix, Audible, The Economist...), I expounded a little bit here: [http://www.thetechbastard.com/post/3326771970/a-hypothetical...](http://www.thetechbastard.com/post/3326771970/a-hypothetical- netflix-ios-plan)

<comment><USER3> What about Apple's rule that the in app subscription needs to be the same or better than available elsewhere?

<comment><USER4> It seems to me that the simple way is pretty much what the grandparent described. Classify API/mobile access as a value-add and charge extra for it.

For a web-based SaaS, I could see them doing something like "Web-only access including mobile web, $10/mo" and "Web + native mobile/API access: $15/mo" -- then only offer the latter option in-app.

I suppose you could try to classify Android and iOS API access differently, but I suspect that might be a little over the line in terms of trying to slip it through the app store review process.

I do still wonder how third party apps to hit a subscription API are going to work, though. I suppose a lot of those will be for-pay so Apple gets their vig from that anyway, but it's always possible someone will decide to release a free one...

<comment><USER5> Another way: have entirely separate accounts for mobile access. If you have access to both a web-interface app account and a mobile app account, they can be "linked" such that the data is synchronized between the two. This would also be the only way mobile accounts could share data with non-mobile accounts.

This would work for apps where the mobile UI is only an adjunct for doing real work on the desktop version.

<comment><USER6> Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy! Or at least keep it with iDevice users. Us Android folks have gone with a corporate parent that doesn't abuse us or our vendor friends.

<comment><USER5> _Keep your high-priced mobile access plan to yourself buddy!_

All of my apps are planned to be free, ad-supported, with in-app purchases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While the OP comes across as a tad hyperbolic, this is what I've thought for a long time: if a business is dependent on the good graces of the provider of a platform it's built on, it simply does not have a working model. It happened before with Facebook credits, and Apple making a similar move is no surprise to me.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. But how can one oppose new methods of the closed, proprietary system that generates revenue, when the open alternative doesn't?

<comment><USER9> That's not what is happening here. My company makes all of its money from subscription services that we sell directly to customers. Now if we provide a IOS app to access that content, we risk losing 30% of our revenue if the user happens to sign up via the app instead of via our website.

I'm not sure what "open alternative" you are referring to. My website -- built on "open" everything, other than the subscription cost -- is doing fine. I would like to provide a native IOS app to access that content. But I can't accept a 30% revenue cut.

<comment><USER10> Now take that and move that to Amazon's domain. The currently offer insanely low prices. Selling each book with a 30% to apple can make their profit margin zero or less. Which means that either Amazon must raise prices on their products and thus giving Apple the ability to compete vs Amazon on price via unfair advantage or Amazon pulls out giving apple a monopoly. I don't think Microsoft ever made these sort of policies. Though granted MS never made an amazing platform.

On the flip side, apple created a platform. That platform is where apple wants a piece of the pie of every transaction period. Don't like it? Don't make apps for it. Nobody is holding a gun to any developer's head forcing them to make iPhone/iPad apps. If enough developers turn away, apple will react appropriately. So quit complaining and pull your apps from their store. "But that will hurt my profits" well then quit whining and just accept what apple has to give you. If enough great developers move to Android, and make insanely awesome android apps that everyone wants a piece of, then iOS has some major competition.

<comment><USER5> _Now take that and move that to Amazon's domain. The currently offer insanely low prices. Selling each book with a 30% to apple can make their profit margin zero or less._

There's a new ecosystem waiting to be born here.

My read is that Apple is looking ahead at a future full of small/startup ebook publishers.

At the local iPhone dev meetup, I met this college kid with a modest little Catholic prayers and affirmations app. It's basically the electronic equivalent of a pamphlet. He doesn't put any effort into marketing it. It makes $150/month. Granted, that's a small amount, but a _very tiny amount of investment_ went into that small return. With a little effort, I bet there's a lot of independent authors who could make a living publishing this way, and that the big players in ebooks and publishing are actually in the way of this ecosystem coming into being.

<comment><USER9> > My read is that Apple is looking ahead at a future full of small/startup > ebook publishers.

If I was a small/startup, I would happily give over some percentage -- possibly even 30% -- of my revenue to Apple in order to avoid building my own payment system. The App store is really nice, and if they want to compete on the merits of the store, then that's great.

But Apple isn't doing that. They are using the power of their marketshare to force publishers into paying a 30% tithe to Apple just to put an application on the device. It doesn't matter if you are Amazon or the New York Times and already have your own subscription system -- you have to eat the 30% cut.

That's what bothers me about this. If Apple wants to compete by providing a more cost effective point of sale system, then that's great; everyone wins. But they are abusing a monopoly position to force publishers into their system, and in that game, Apple is the only winner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "... they will need to give Apple 30% of their subscription revenue for all customers that want to access SalesForce via mobile."

Wow, a huge post based on this flawed understanding. It isn't 30% of every customer that accesses the mobile app, it's 30% of each client that signs up via the mobile app.

The rules are pretty simple. If you offer subscription service purchasing elsewhere, like your website, you also must offer it in your app via in-app purchase. If a person finds your service by installing the mobile app and then decides to sign up, using the now required in-app purchase ability, Apple gets 30%.

<comment><USER7> ...and if your profit margin is close to that 30%, as it is with many businesses, you are now required (should you choose to develop an app for iOS) to sell your product to users whom you have to support and stand a very good chance of gaining nothing from.

In other words, such a business would be required to offer an option to hand off all of its profit to Apple, should it choose to offer a native iOS app. Apple gets a better experience for its customers, and the third party gets more customers it gets zero profit from. I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable. (And look at it from a user's perspective: if given two options, one-click billing through Apple or time-consuming credit card entry through a web portal, which do you suppose the majority of users will take?)

So how exactly is that understanding flawed?

Edit: More details added, and some wording correction.

<comment><USER12> No-one is _required_ to sell stuff in the App Store. Don't sell stuff in the App Store, keep all your profits.

> I can understand if such a business would find this unacceptable.

Let's say you distribute a FREE app in the App Store and it requires a subscription at $10.00 per month (through Apple) but you provide a handy button labeled "Get subscription for $8.00 per month" that goes to your website.

Apple doesn't want this. It costs Apple to distribute (and market, and support) your App. Apple gets nothing. And now you are selling your profitable product via an inferior user experience AND making anyone who actually uses Apple's service look like a chump.

Gee, why doesn't Apple allow this?

<comment><USER13> > It costs Apple to distribute (and market, and support) your App

Give me a break. You used the weasel word "costs" which is technically truthful, because it is greater than zero. But it is not material, IMHO.

Because developers _PAY_ $100/developer to get on the Apple developer program. They spend their own money/time to develop the app. And sell it to a user who's _PAID_ for his phone and net access. Apple is serving as a glorified download.com (which btw also does reviews and ratings for free).

Apple "markets" apps: again a weasel word, since in your universe listing your app in their directory is "marketing". Ditto "support" (they test your app cursorily to reject things).

<comment><USER11> But they are marketing your app by marketing the platform. Those commercials you see with catchy tunes and hands swiping and flicking apps, those make people want an iOS device to run apps. Everything Apple does is to make consumers _want_ to come to the platform, and based on their numbers, it is working. Then you, the developer, gets to put you app in the only marketplace available to those 100M+ users. _That_ is the value Apple is bringing.

It is the same value other market places bring. People sell on eBay because they know there are eyeballs there. Same with people who sell on Amazon. eBay and Amazon market their platforms to bring that value. No one creates their own webpage when they want to sell some stuff and hope people find it through Google. They go to where the hard part, bringing people to look, has already been done.

<comment><USER14> Apple is marketing their hardware product and the platform, _not_ your app.Yours is just one app out of hundreds of thousands, soon to be millions.

If Apple is eating your businesses margins, and you gain nothing from operating on their platform, then what's the point? "I get no profit from my customer, and this may even be costing me money because I'll never recover the cost of iOS app development and maintenance, but at least I got to pay $100 for the privilege of being app #823,465".

<comment><USER15> Can you please show me an utopia where you are not fighting against thousands of competitors?

What is this sissy attitude?

It's hard to make a living it's hard to make money. You are no paying for the privilege you are paying for access to paying customers.

<comment><USER14> That's not the point in question and you know it. Stay on topic please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apple is notorious for ripping businesses built on their platforms out from under the people that created them. It has happened with OS X by them taking a popular 3rd party utility/app and integrating the idea/look/feel directly with no attribution. It has happened with iOS, and now it is just coming to a point where Apple is flat out saying that if you make money on our platform, regardless if the value is outside of iOS, we want a cut if you want to be on it at all.

<comment><USER17> _It has happened with OS X by them taking a popular 3rd party utility/app and integrating the idea/look/feel directly with no attribution_

Citation?

<comment><USER18> Konfabulator comes to mind: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2005/04/macosx-10-4.ars...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2005/04/macosx-10-4.ars/17)

<comment><USER19> This subscription model I have a problem with, but....

Ignoring the original Mac OS (and all the OS version up to 9) is the only way to say they ripped off Konfabulator. Desk Accessories finally make an appearance in OS X after missing since OS 9 and it is a ripoff of Konfabulator?

<comment><USER20> Can't believe this debate is happening again in 2011. Serious deja vu.

[edit upon downvote: I don't mean it _shouldn't_ happen, I just thought it was funny to suddenly be transported back to that time; hadn't even thought of the app nor the arguments around it in years.]

<comment><USER19> I just get sick of people trotting this one out when it was history ignoring in the first place. It also ignores the whole Yahoo thing, but I digress. Its like during a really in-depth boxing debate trotting out the boxer's W-L record when wearing blue shorts....

I could be in a bad mood just because this foolish policy probably destroyed any hope of micro-payments on iOS devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've read Apple's release a couple of times.

I think someone should directly ask them what their policy is on SaaS subscriptions, because you could easily make a case either way from the press release.

But I agree with the article, if Apple's intent is to get into the SaaS revenue stream, it's a major issue. I have clients who have been considering moving to platforms that include mobile apps on iOS devices, and that 30% Apple iTunes cut will get passed right on to them. Not to mention the hassle of having to create and manage purchases for individual iTunes accounts for each device.

HP has a great opportunity here to loudly announce that they are going to be SaaS friendly, and I think this could be the turning point on iOS's market share.

<comment><USER9> Why is it only a major issue if it relates to SaaS? Isn't screwing over Amazon and anyone else selling that kind of content already a major issue?

Anyway, Apple clearly wants this to apply to XaaS, where X = anything and S = subscription. Or by this time next year, Xaa$.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems OP hasn't quite thought this through...

Apple does not demand 30% of out-of-app sales, just that out-of-app sales are not cheaper than in-app sales.

And as far as I read the release, SaaS is not concerned. Unless you're using Apples subscription mechanism, you're not offering a subscription in-app. So if you simply use a web API, that's not a subscription.

Can Apple change that at any time? Yes. Closed platforms take power from developers and give it to the platform vendor - in exchange for (often) a bigger pie to get your slice from.

Is the OP yet another pageview troll? Yes. Posting blatantly false information in the headline seems to indicate that.

<comment><USER23> _"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app"_ \-- <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html>

By this rule, _all_ apps that offer subscriptions must additionally implement Apple's subscription mechanism.

This is what the OP (and everyone else) is reacting to.

<comment><USER22> Not really - all apps that offer subscriptions must go through Apple's mechanism _anyways_. And subscription is (IMHO) well defined as referring to content, with types of content enumerated.

So unless you make the case that SaaS is content, the post is baseless.

<comment><USER24> Baseless? Because Apple would never try to skim 30% of all the revenue that flows through their devices. That's crazy talk. /sarcasm

The post is absolutely _not_ baseless. Apple hasn't made their intentions clear regarding SaaS subscriptions, and it is likely that they want that money as well.

<comment><USER22> Making a statement of fact ("Apple is taking 100% of mobile SaaS revenue") with no basis in reality is pretty much the _definition_ of baseless. Unless and until Apple speaks on SaaS, this is a figment of the authors imagination. I'm not saying "it can't happen". I'm saying "not true as of right now"

I'm surprised "making shit up" qualifies as news on HN these days.

<comment><USER24> The article begins with the premise, "It appears to me that the new "give Apple 30% of revenue" policy will apply to software subscriptions just as well as it appears to content." Assuming that sentence was always part of the article, it seems like you're just reacting to the headline.

SaaS was an angle I hadn't thought of in regard to Apple's new policies, and their decisions there have important implications. I'm glad I saw this article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm starting to see a whole bunch of posts/comments about people reacting to losing 30% of their SaaS software revenue but no one seems to be calling out the Apple contract specifically lists _content_ as defined as magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video. So I don't see where the SaaS angst is coming from.

Apple can charge 30% for apps and content because the ENTIRE product is being delivered on iOS. They can't charge that cut for SaaS because only a subset of the product is being delivered.

 _Could_ Apple attempt to take a cut from SaaS products if a user signed up from within your app IN THE FUTURE...sure, but I doubt they'd be stupid enough to try for 30%. Should Apple be compensated in some way for hosting/downloading your mobile app for your SaaS backend...maybe, and I'd be prepared to pay some commission if it drove signups, it might just be a tad lower than 30% though.

<comment><USER26> The argument in your last paragraph is almost exactly what everyone said about Apple's approach to subscriptions. "Apple would be crazy to demand 30% from publishers and distributors. Amazon can't afford 30%!"

Yet here we are today, wondering just how the hell everyone is going to carve 30% out of their business model. Anyone who thinks that task is anything even _approaching_ trivial has never run a business.

<comment><USER25> I wasn't arguing that Apple _won't_ do it, just that they would be even more crazy to try this for SaaS than for content subscriptions. It's one thing to charge 30% for when someone is selling an entire product through your platform.

It would be unprecedented if they tried to charge 30% merely for access from your iOS device to a SaaS app. I think there is a pretty big difference.

Lastly, carving 30% out from your list price is pretty common if you're the wholesaler, manufacturer or orignal producer. For most of those scenarios they'll often be able to afford much more than 30%. It's the middlemen and distributors that get really hosed...and unfortunately services that do provide value but licence their content from others are collateral damage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _affecting companies like Amazon, and companies like SalesForce that have made a significant investment iOS investment, one has to wonder whether building iPhone apps is safe_

This. iOS remains, by the numbers, one of the worst places for freelance developers to spend their time. Profits are diminutive in the average case, and app store policies impose additional risks that have forced entire shops to leave the iOS ecosystem or change how they do business inside it.

</comment><comment><USER28> If this is true, this will be a very unfair policy coming from Apple. This will be the divorce between web apps and iOS. I can see HP/Microsoft/Google/etc opening their doors to free SaaS.

Apple is getting greedy and capricious, and when this happens no good will come from it.

</comment><comment><USER29> APIs for software services make this whole thing even more complicated. Some company has a web service offering which they charge $10/month for. They also have a web API, which allows 3rd-party developers to write apps for the service. Case (1): The services writes an iOS app to access their service. Case (2): A third party comes along and writes an iOS app for the service, using the service's API.

If it's true that in (1), they have to offer an IAP-way for users to purchase a subscription, what does that say about (2)? The third-party developer has no way of adding IAP to their app (it's not their company and the API doesn't expose such functionality).

Under these (more and more crazy sounding) rules, is (2) still required to pay the 30%? And given that it's impossible for (2) to have an IAP subscription option, maybe (2) isn't even allowed to exist? But if it is, then the service company could just pay 3rd-party developers to write apps for their service to add value for their subscribers without having to deal with the 30% stuff.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm confused by how far-reaching this is. Let's take Netflix: I currently subscribe to netflix via their website and consume it via multiple channels, including the iPad. What, if anything, is Apple asking netflix to do? It sounds like: provide a link in the app to subscribe to netflix, which must cost the same as signing up elsewhere, and pass 30% of the $18 a month to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER31> But isn't the solution to simply make a mobile webapp instead of an app?

It's not technically always feasible, but most of the time it is.

</comment><comment><USER32> The example of SalesForce in the article sounds wrong. Apple's 30% fee on subscriptions does not apply to ALL subscription revenue of a publisher, just to the subscriptions of users who found the publisher in the App Store. Quote: "when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing". If this is true, there is nothing unfair about it.

<comment><USER26> This assumes that every business model has a 30% margin they can give up to an "agent"; in this scenario, Apple. Many, many businesses operate on less than 30% margins.

Because of this, offering an iOS app becomes a loss leader. No, 100% of your user base will not sign up through iOS, but the 30% commission to Apple will dilute your margins on non-iOS sales. The net effect is that any company who operates a direct sales model will see a dilution of their margins, and must bet on the fact that in-app subscriptions will compensate for this in increased sales. There are many scenarios where this makes absolutely no sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> So, the key is to make sure no one finds your app unless they are _already_ a paying customer.

I see a burgeoning new field: "reverse SEO" for SaaS mobile apps.

</comment><comment><USER34> The press release begins by referring to "publishers of content-based apps", and uses "publishers" throughout. I think it is pretty clear that they are not talking about SaaS.

The article also fails to understand that it is not taking cut of revenue from existing subscribers: only those that sign up through an iOS application.

<comment><USER23> What would a "content-free" app look like? Aren't all apps, by definition, based on content?

I'm not meaning to be cute or trite -- I'm genuinely confused from the press release which category of apps will fall under these new rules. Which is why we'll need to wait for the legalese in the iOS developer terms to understand what this _really_ means.

<comment><USER22> "content" is actually well defined in the App Store terms. And it doesn't include SaaS under it.

<comment><USER23> You mean these terms? <http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html>

Here is "content" being used to mean "everything that's in an app":

"The Application Provider of each Third-Party Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, _the content therein_ , any warranties to the extent that such warranties have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third-Party Product."

And here is the section on subscriptions, in which content is, in my opinion, not well defined:

"Certain App Store Products may include functionality that enables you to _purchase content on a subscription basis_ ("Paid Subscriptions")."

I just scanned all 72 mentions of the word 'content' and couldn't find the definition you're alluding to.

<comment><USER22> Those are the _consumer_ terms. Devs and publishers would instead have to look at the approval terms. (<http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html>)

And lo & behold, I give you Section 11.13: "Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app"... yadda, yadda.

Sounds like a definition of "content" to me...

<comment><USER35> Saas does not sound like a subscription service to me, not in the traditional sense.

Content subscriptions are timed releases of packaged, curated content pushed to you on a regular schedule.

Saas is a portal that lets you access data, information and tools on an ad hoc basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Just 4-5 years ago most Telco's were building portals and walled gardens where they were licensing the content themselves (or even had teams creating it in house) and selling it in various ways to their customer base. So never mind a 30% cut, they were competing with content producers. If you were trying to sell content the Telco was hoping to sell forget a 30% cut, you couldn't even get on their platform and you earned a big fat $0.

If you really were lucky they'd decide to let you on but would take a 50/50 or 60/40 revenue share.

30% is starting to seem not so bad...compared to that at least.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think they need to just offer a "iPhone connectivity" option for extra $$$. Then they need to offer that and only that via the appstore in app purchase on the phone.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm assuming that if you decide to sell your SaaS via the AppStore, you can't move your customer data outside of it should you choose to discontinue offering your AppStore interface?

So anyone who purchased a recurring subscription via the AppStore would be lost (would have to be prompted to re-purchase) should you leave the AppStore?

If so, then iOS definitely doesn't seem like a good investment for a SaaS business.

</comment><comment><USER38> Sounds pretty similar to Apple's earlier attitude about 3rd party developers being parasites on 'their' platform. While (of course) they do own it, the 3rd Party developers are partners that add value, not parasites.

</comment><comment><USER39> Is this a potential win for independent iOS developers?

If the SaaS provider isn't the supplier of the app, but they fully endorse (and promote) its use, does that create a loophole?

</comment><comment><USER40> what about dropbox 30% of 9.9$ LOL</comment>


Show HN: Subscription Score – A browser ext that identifies bad mailing lists - <AUTHOR> https://subscriptionscore.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! I work on a web app that makes it easy to unsubscribe from mailing lists.

Last year we started building an algorithm to rank subscriptions, with the intention of making it easier for our users to see at a glance what they should unsubscribe from and what they should keep.

We trialed this functionality within the app for a few months and quickly realised that it could be useful as a tool to protect people from signing up to bad mailing lists in the first place.

Currently, when you hand over your email address to a website or service, there is very little way to know how responsible they will be with it and how many emails they will send you.

Our goal is to help cut down on the amount of unwanted spam we all receive in our inboxes, and we think that addressing this information inequality is an important step in this direction.

So today we're releasing a browser extension to do just that! If the website you are currently visiting is known to send mailing lists, then we show you our Subscription Score rank for those lists in browser toolbar.

To help further, if the extension notices that you are signing up on a website with a bad score, then it will show you an alert, warning you that the site may spam your inbox if you hand over your email address.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and questions!

<comment><USER2> This is a really great idea, I just feel the value proposition at $6/m or even the $3/m isn't justified to me.

That's putting you above my iCloud sub and barely below my Google sub, only a little below what I'm paying for Netflix.

I guess I'm just tiring from subscription fatigue.

Edit: Just want to add, unfortunately the few minutes of time I currently spend curating my email is worth far less than the cost. While it might appeal to a niche subset of SV users I just can't see the value proposition for anyone else.. I guess it's a question of your cost of service vs potential addressable market.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yessss, we did think it could be difficult to sell a browser extension on subscription. The market possibly suffers from a similar fate as app store sales - people are very used to getting them for free!

That said we've had a few sales today, so we'll see how it goes. If it doesn't work out then it's fairly easy to tweak the price, or we could offer a freemium version.

Though my instinct tells me that if users wouldn't even pay $3/m for something then it probably hasn't got great product market fit and we need to change our approach!

<comment><USER3> I currently use and pay $11/year for pinboard. I am very happy with the service and I gladly renew every year. I am not much of a newsletter subscriber, but your plugin may help change my mind.

However, your service is not worth over three times the cost I am currently paying to keep track of my internet bookmarks.

But I also realize I am a bit of an outlier. I host my own music server rather than use Spotify. I run my own Nextcloud service rather than use Dropbox. I run my own Plex server rather than subscribe to Netflix. I cancelled my Amazon Prime after they raised the price. I didn't use their streaming services and I can wait another day or two for the junk I just bought.

Hopefully this info will help you and your company.

<comment><USER4> Spotify offers a lot more value per dollar than this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is the score calculated? One example has "high" unsubscribe rate but a 9.99 score. Another one has a high score but a "tedious" description.

The scores just felt a bit off to me from the examples.

I agree with some other comments that suggest this is valuable data but I would suggest giving it to consumers for free and allow them to vote to give you better data and then charge newsletter creators for the data and ways to improve their score.

</comment><comment><USER6> I love this, but it costs too much. $5-15/year maybe, but $3-6/month definitely not.

<comment><USER7> It's $3 a month! That's around the price of a cheap cup of coffee in the US. I don't get why people can say in the same sentence: "I love this product" and "it's too expensive". You are not willing to pay the same amount as one cup of coffee a month for it? It blows my mind.

<comment><USER8> Because it's not a cup of coffee.

You're more or less guaranteed a consistent taste when you order a cup of coffee. Not so much when buying a subscription to a random SaaS from the HN front page. Trust is a significant issue here.

Coffee also doesn't require commitment. I can walk out of the shop, and say "that's my last coffee", and that'll be the end of it. No hunting down unsubscribe/cancel buttons, etc.

I mean as someone building their own SaaS, I totally get the frustration. But anchoring your price to coffee isn't as useful as say, what people pay for Dropbox, VPS/VPN or email providers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> it seems you're good with playing the cheap viral game on product hunt, but probably that kind of cheap tricks doesn't work very well here.</comment>


Yoda Is Dead but Star Wars' Dubious Lessons Live On - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/yoda-is-dead-but-star-wars-dubious-lessons-live-on <comment><USER2> I think the worst about our media, is that most stories are based on dividing people into good and evil. This way of thinking is also very common in our society.

Why do criminals and terrorists act like they do? If you ask people they will tell you because they're evil. But actually nobody is evil, everybody wants something positive. The question is just for whom they think it will be positive and why they think it is positive to do. When you think that they're evil on the other hand you don't have to think about anything and just fight them, because good needs to fight evil.

<comment><USER3> I don't know why you would think that killing innocent people isn't evil.

If you delibrately disturb harmony, or deny someone their rights, or take away something by force that isn't yours, you need to be stopped. Because one thing would lead to another and life as everyone knows it would become a living hell.

Step back and look at oppressive regimes over the course of history. They all have traces of evil in them. It's that simple. I admit that good for one might be evil for another, but there's a basic set of things, I guess, the majority can agree on about what's good and what's not.

<comment><USER4> Are you familiar with the Trolley Problem? [0] It's a simple thought experiment, which is intended to make you re-think whether murder is always an evil act.

Suppose a trolley is barelling down a track towards five tied-down people. If it continues, it'll kill them. But, you have access to a lever which would send the trolley down a side-track instead. But the side-track also has one person tied to it. By pulling the lever, you are effectively murdering that helpless, innocent person -- but you would save the other five. If you don't touch the lever, then you are just an innocent bystander who happened to see a quintuple homicide.

In this case, if you insist that murder is evil, and you refuse to be evil, then you have no choice but to let the five people die. But if you allow that murder is sometimes okay -- which is a utilitarian perspective, in the sense that you care more about the ends than the means -- then it becomes much fuzzier whether murder is inherently evil. Indeed, as soon as you give an explicit definition for evil, it becomes very difficult to defend it. The fact of the matter is, the good/evil dichotomy is false and artificial.

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

<comment><USER5> Philosophizing abstractly about edge cases is fun but it doesn't really offer anything useful for day-to-day basic living. It's pretty clear that to a vanishingly small gap, murder is 100% evil.

<comment><USER6> Discussing edge cases is just the way to find out if a concept (either a technical model or a qualitative worldview) is generally applicable.

Especially if those concepts are touted as being all-encompassing, holding without exception or being superior to other concepts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get the feeling this guy takes _Star Wars_ (and probably himself) just a little worryingly seriously.

I can't really understand what he's saying - that George Lucas is evil? That the _Star Wars_ films are promoting Lucas' evil agenda? That no one has actually noticed any of this and that's bad?

The cynic in me wonders if perhaps David Brin has a new novel coming out soon...

<comment><USER8> If I wanted to understand a culture via their movies, I would not reach out exclusively for their serious dramas, historical pieces, and solemn biopics. I would certainly rope stuff like Star Wars in.

The way I see it, there was a fascinating trend in action movies throughout my life, when the hero went from plain good 100% hero (say, a late 80s hero), to a grizzled guy that's ultimately got his heart in the right place (Wolverine types, Die Hard types), to fairly despicable people that "go out like men" doing epic stuff (Walter White), to completely messed up manipulative people that are triumphant and that's it (House of Cards dude).

People find this kind of analysis very non-rigorous, but I often feel like the fact that these were successively popular with American audiences matches pretty well the changing self-image of America-the-nation. From pretense of full-righteousness to cynical "realism" and taking pride in "somebody has to do it" to "at least we're on top".

So, I think extremely deep reads of fairly shallow but resonant fiction are often very worthwhile.

edit: Of course, someone will point out that these are popular with different demographics and whatnot, that my cohort aged, etc.- I'm not going to turn this into a rigorous statistical analysis. It's just musings.

<comment><USER9> I was about to laugh at you for not realising that Netflix's House Of Cards is actually a remake of a BBC series from 1990, but on reflection that probably adds to your point.

Many British films of the 1950's and 60's (also being non-rigorous!) are morally very black and white, lots of war movies, but also things like the early James Bond films have an absolute faith that Britain was a world power, maybe alongside the US and USSR, but still important, whereas by the late 1980's that self confidence had pretty much gone and instead you get the shades of grey and cynicism of things like House Of Cards.

Of course Britain's loss of empire was much more definitive then any US decline, which is mostly a post-9/11 post-iraq war loss of confidence but there is an interesting parallel.

Most programmes are a commentary on the time they are made, not the time they are set so I agree deep reads can be very revealing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He obviously has the right to his own opinion, but it would help if he actually gave the impression of watching the films thoroughly.

To quote:

"The force was only a little bit about talent and more about training: Obi-Wan offers to teach it to Han"

This simply does not happen anywhere, neither in the films nor in the now de- cannoned EU.

He also gets the plotlines of Ep. II and III quite mixed up in a few paragraphs about Yoda, and fails to realise that the Republic is hardly modelled on a modern-day parliamentary democracy but rather the fatally flawed Weimar Republic.

While this doesn't necessarily invalidate his trains of thought, it certainly makes their basis scientifically dishonest.

<comment><USER11> Some commenters disputed the Han statement, and some others flew to his defense. His own defense of that statement was rather uncharitable to the objectors and he coyly avoided pointing out where exactly it occurred.

I myself reviewed the script several times, and I couldn't find it anywhere. The only time the topic came up with Han and Ben was while Luke was training with the helmet and droid, and Ben definitely does not offer to train him. So I'm confused where he seems to think this occurred.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think what I didn't like is that while it required lot of training to be Jedi in the past, Rey seemed to have miraculously acquired congenitally. Or did I not notice/heard how she got trained?

<comment><USER13> The current thought is that she had training from Luke as a kid in the school they mention. But then when the school was disbanded they suppressed her memories and left her on that planet. Then when Kylo used the force on her mind, he broke loose the training.

<comment><USER14> I really hope this isn't accurate. Amnesia plots are so cliche

<comment><USER15> "They say the Force can do terrible things to your mind. It can wipe away your memory, and destroy your very identity!" —Carth Onasi

<comment><USER14> That character is non-canonical :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A bit off topic, but was anyone else disappointed that a sanatation trooper was able to have a decent light saber fight with a Jedi!!?? Unless Finn has special Jedi powers that we don't know about yet. That would be like my Luddite artist friend taking an hour of code and beating out Linus in a hackathon.

(Still the movie was very special).

<comment><USER17> I got the impression that Kylo Ren was toying with him. The whole chest thumping bit was Ren saying "I'm kicking your ass without even trying."

<comment><USER18> He had just been shot by a bowcaster and was severely wounded. He was hitting his wound to get himself pumped up with rage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> " I've issued a challenge for anyone out there to come show us even one scene in the latest flick that was not an homage to earlier Star Wars episodes. " I hate it when people give these pseudo-challenges. There were quite a few, and I fear I run the risk of some easily mocked nerd rage if I attempt to list them.

<comment><USER19> When Kylo killed Han, how was that an homage to any earlier scene in a SW movie? No character in any Star Wars move had ever killed their parent- Anakin's mom was killed by the Sand People, and Vader/Anakin succumbed to injuries sustained by Palpatine's force lightning, that shorted out his circuitry.

<comment><USER15> That scene was overt homage to the "I am your father" scene in V. With a number of inversions, of course.

<comment><USER19> Except Luke didn't murder Vader in cold blood.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but it's still an obvious homage. Father/son meet on narrow path over giant pit, father begs son to join him, son summons the strength to do what his mentors taught, etc. Sure the light / dark sides are swapped but it's very much not subtle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The big thing about Force Awakens I missed was the advances in technological film making. That was always George Lucas most important contribution to film. He always raised the bar.

<comment><USER21> I thought the effects looked amazing. Since the turn of the millennium we've had movies switch over almost entirely to digital effects, but pure cgi still just doesn't look _really_ real. It's missing some ineffable emotional weight that makes its fruit not quite believable. TFA, in trying to recreate some of the look of the original films using practical effects, also had the effect of saying, look what we can do when we combine real things that are actually in front of the camera with state of the art digital effects. I don't think I've seen a big special effects movie that looked so actually real since the golden age of practical effects in the 90s – movies like Jurassic Park come to mind.

<comment><USER22> I hadn't come across the term "practical effect" before, and Wikipedia defines it as meaning no use of computer generated imagery. Jurassic Park used a lot of CGI for the dinosaurs so I'm not sure what you mean by your comment.

<comment><USER21> Jurassic Park used something like 3 minutes of computer generated effects. Most of the dinosaurs you see on screen are actual puppets and robots.

Edit: the internet says 4 minutes</comment></comment></comment></comment>