Ask HN: Someone raised money by claiming my project as their own - <AUTHOR> Throwaway for obvious reasons.
I built an open source project, licensed Apache. A startup raised more than 1M based on my project and forgot to remove the links to my site.  A potential investor shot me an email telling me that the startup ripped my demo and is telling investors that they own the IP.
How should I respond?  Is this common practice? <comment><USER3> While to be pedantically correct they don't literally own the IP, the startup is correct in telling investors that they have the rights to build a business from what software they have. Your license is very permissive and grants them this.

If you don't want people to use your software to build a business, you should release it under a license that forbids it. (There isn't such a license but AGPL effectively accomplishes this.) If you want people to be required to mention you when they use your software, you should release it under a license that requires this. (For example, the unpopular 4-clause BSD license requires this.)

With all that said, it's still kind of a jerk move on the startup's part for them not to even contact you. But modern software is made up of many people's open source software and most of them never get any acknowledgement...

<comment><AUTHOR> If they were just using the software and telling investors that they were using it under the Apache license, there would be no problem. The investor said that the startup is claiming they actually wrote the code.

<comment><USER4> If the group retains the attribution notices in the source code, hopefully this will be found when the VC does due diligence and then it's up to the VC what to do. If the group removed the attribution notices and you can somehow gather evidence of this, then they violated the Apache License and you should be able to sue. Whether or not this would be fruitful is up to whichever lawyer you contact.

<comment><USER5> I have never in my life seen a VC look at source code. Even the more technical ones that might be interested in the technical details limit themselves to the overall architecture (and even that mostly out of curiosity). Is anyone else's experience different?

<comment><USER6> I had potential acquirers hire consultants (on their dime) to audit my code and commit logs. Their questions were brief yet very specific. I felt that this would be standard practice for any good VC / acquiring business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We'd need much clearer specifics to give good advice, but generally I'd avoid getting aggressive. It's unlikely that you have much (if any) legal claim, so the primary benefit you can get is to build some social capital with their investors.

> How should I respond? Is this common practice?

It is extremely common practice to use open source software in building a company, but most startups will acknowledge they didn't write all the code themselves. That being said, some certainly do gloss over the exact authorship (especially since some business people _still_ don't understand open source).

Also, there's a huge difference between them selling literally your code as their own and them using your code to build a business you hadn't thought of.

Either way, your best bet is to respond diplomatically to the investors. If you play your cards right (don't be aggressive, but do be clear that you wrote the IP), you could easily spin this into:

1) Money for an additional "license" (essentially, money to keep you from harassing them)

2) Investment in your own startup. The fact that people are successfully raising money on software you wrote speaks volumes to your potential market.

<comment><AUTHOR> My biggest fear at the moment is that they will turn around in the future and try to take action against me. If they are telling others that they wrote the code, and if someone tells them about my code, i wouldn't want to face a legal battle. Maybe it's unfounded, but I'm still a bit emotional.

<comment><USER7> That's probably a healthy approach, especially if you're feeling emotional about the situation right now. There's definitely not a big rush.

Keep in mind that it is very unlikely they'll try to litigate against you——they're the ones who have the most to lose. Not only could they potentially have violated your copyright, but they also risk significant perceived damage (many VCs won't touch a startup in litigation with a 10 foot pole).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Thank the investor for letting you know.

2\. Explain that you are glad that someone is finding your software useful. Ask them if they have any questions about the software.

3\. Explain what you are working on now.

4\. Network with them for the long term.

The investment community will handle any dishonesty according to its habits and those of the particular investors involved.

<comment><USER9> This is good advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, it sounds like they're defrauding their investors while actually complying with their legal obligations to you; the Apache license allows copying, and deploying code to a website (without sharing the code itself) isn't even thought of as "distribution" in copyright terms.

So I'd be surprised if you have anything personal to gain from pursuing this, other than the karmic payoff of seeing cheaters be punished.

<comment><USER11> The Apache 2 license has attribution clauses.

<comment><USER10> The attribution clauses in Apache 2 apply to notices in source code, when redistributing that source code.

The company using OP's code is presumably not distributing his source code publicly at all. They're just using it to power a deployed website. So an act of distribution as defined by copyright and the Apache license has not taken place, so the attribution clauses do not apply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a really interesting case and I think there are two paths you could take, depending on what you want to do with your life:

1\. Do you want to be the businessperson? Do you want to raise money, start a company, deal with HR, have board meetings, and commercialize your software? If so, then it sounds like you would want to keep this competitor out of the market. At this stage, you could probably achieve that by sending some friendly, politely-worded emails to the parties involved explaining the true origins of the IP. I say you could do this in a friendly way because you are actually helping the investors by giving them a more accurate picture of what could've been a deceptive pitch. I wouldn't necessarily push for them to invest in you because they might be soured by the whole thing, but I'd be open if they expressed interest. At this point, I'd stress don't be mean or aggressive about it - just be helpful and honest.

2\. Or do you want to kick back and work on your open source software? If this is the case, and I'm guessing it is, then you probably want to _encourage_ people to raise money based on your IP and then figure out ways to work with them to extract some licensing/consulting fees. If some one raises $1M based on your open-source software, it would be very reasonable for you to get $50K-$100K of that through fees over the next year. Some people are going to be defensive and think that you're "losing" $900K - but you were never going to raise that money in the first place, so how can you "lose" it? Now, how you get your $100K is dependent on circumstance, but it could be in the form of custom development for them, trademark licensing, premium support, premium software add-ons, etc. Overall, your goal is to maintain control/leverage over the IP and knowledge while helping others build a commercial market around it.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's an awful feeling. It has been done to one of my open source projects before.

Here's my thought on why they did it.

1\. Exclusive ownership of IP has a lot of value to the investors. The IP can be licensed out and can be used as a competitive advantage. When the company is sold later, IP is an important part of it. Claiming IP ownership of your project increases their funding appealing to the investors. Otherwise, another group can just easily use your open source project to build a competing company.

2\. Claiming ownership of the IP gives the appearance of their development prowess of building the project from scratch. It adds to their technical competency to the investors. In reality what they're really good at is taking credit of other people work.

Now what do you want to do? It has been a hurtful experience and you are probably pretty emotional. I would. But time to check emotion at the door and start to play ball.

You being the exclusive ownership of IP has tremendous advantage. See 1.

Tell the investor you own the IP. You were just being philanthropic to open source it; however, you still own and control the IP. Investors really try to avoid tangled IP so they can sell the company in a clean bundle later.

As for the startup, you can sell them a license for a large fee to allow them to close-source their new modification. This essentially let them buy off control of a branching of the project. And investors like it since it gives them control over future IP addition.

You can consult for them, but I think it's a bad idea given how these people have behaved unethically.

You can tell them to stop claiming ownership of the IP and give attribution, and remind them any future changes they make have to be open source as well.

Or if you want to play the long game, you can sit back. Let them develop the company. Later have your lawyer sent them notice that you want to audit all their code to make sure any derivation of the project is properly open sourced.

<comment><USER14> > remind them any future changes they make have to be open source as well

Unlike GPL, the Apache license isn't "copyleft" or "viral," so derivative works and modifications don't have to be Apache-licensed or open sourced at all.

<comment><USER15> Apache 2 does have have an attribution clause, though (4.c and 4.d). It seems like this implies that if the startup is removing the attribution link or license text from source code files, they're in violation of the license.

(BTW, the author should clarify what exactly the investor means by "claiming the work as their own". Are they claiming they have a right to use the work, which they do? Or are they claiming they are the copyright owners, which they are not? Investors are often non-technical and non-legal, so it's quite possible something has been lost in translation.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In the start up world, what comes around, goes around. Ethics, trustworthiness, honesty...these are all important factors. All of the angels and VC's I've been around would very likely walk away from people like this. Maybe it was an oversight, maybe it was intentional...but most investors will suss out douchebaggery pretty quickly and ask very direct questions. If you lie at this point, you're not getting funded. If you somehow manage to get funded and the lie remains uncovered, that's highly unusual.

There's really not much you can do though. Maybe politely request the start-up acknowledge the work you did.

But if it were me, I'd just let it go and move on. If you're sensitive about this sort of thing, you probably shouldn't release your code open source.

By the way, I'm familiar with the feelings. I had a private commercial library for years. The second I open-sourced it, at least two companies started using it in their commercial endeavors.

</comment><comment><USER17> What do you want?

Do you want the investment instead? Do you just want to warn the investors that they might be being tricked? Do you want them to start the company and employ you (not a good idea if you can't trust them)?

I suspect you don't have a case yourself unless you have great evidence about exactly what they said and even then in private the damages are probably small. The investors are the ones whom at the least charitable interpretation were being defrauded and may be most angry and have a case.

I suggest that unless you want to pitch for the investment yourself that you stay fairly quiet or quietly let the investors know the situation and let them deal with it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Without specifics you're not going to get much in terms of help but at first glance if they are raising funds on your code then you should contact a lawyer with your license in hand to get his opinion on how to proceed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know any lawyers in the IP space. Do you have a lawyer that you use in your business life?

<comment><USER19> I personally recommend George Grellas (grellas on HN), with whom I have worked on a professional basis and whose services I value greatly. He is someone whose advice I would pay for and trust. His firm's website is [http://www.grellas.com/](http://www.grellas.com/) . (I receive no compensation for making recommendations.)

I am not saying this is a case that he would want to take on (only he could say that, and without knowing more details, it sounds to me [a non-lawyer] as though the entrepreneurs are deceiving the investors while obeying the terms of your license).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The first and easiest thing you should do is make sure that you are clearly labelled as the project's author on the website of the project as well in the source code. If any investors get burned on this (as they probably will) you don't want them suing you alleging that you were somehow contributed to the problem.

Reading up on the Apache license it seems that it requires that any attribution notices be preserved. So I do hope you put notices in your source code saying you wrote it. If you didn't, do it now.

Then you should consult a lawyer that specializes in IP and general business law. You may have both a copyright and business claims against that startup. If they were stupid and removed the license or any attribution from the code when they showed it to investors, then you may have a copyright infringement claim and that can be worth a lot of money.

If they were smart and adhered to the apache license, then you may have a business law claim such as tortious interference with business relationships. But this gets more complex so you really need a lawyer to figure it out. You should find one that knows both copyright and business law. I believe there are lawyers that specialize in small business cases in the software industry that know both copyright and business law.

I have to warn you not to get your hopes up in terms of making money. It is very difficult to make any money from lawsuits and the experience usually ends up a money losing endeavor for both parties. But you do not have to file a suit and maybe you can take some simple steps to protect yourself.

Please keep in mind that nothing here is legal advice. For actual legal advice you should consult a lawyer that knows the details of your situation.

</comment><comment><USER21> People are predatory, and will use your licence to their full benefit. I feel like a jerk saying this, but this example is exactly why I licence my intellectual property under GPLv3 as much as possible. I retain rights, and others are forced to play by my rules lest they enjoy litigation.

But more importantly, if my work is stolen, I have legal recourse because they aren't releasing the source to their derivative work.

</comment><comment><USER22> Make sure your project's public presence (website, github, etc) clearly describes its history and your authorship.

Also make sure it disclaims any associations with the team making false claims, either by name ("project X is not created by or affiliated with site Y"), or generically ("project X is not associated with any company or fundraising efforts").

After that, it depends on what you're concerned about. Is it that you think this group is making off with your opportunities? Undermining your own reputation with their false claims – either because they've hidden your achievements, or are falsely implying your endorsement/involvement? Are you worried about more risk if their lies eventually blow up, due to being revealed as deception or failing the in marketplace? Do you simply want to protect third parties who might be conned?

No matter what, making sure the real origins and authorship are well- documented in the project's public presence helps you: anyone doing due- diligence is likely to find the truth. Other concerns probably only need formal legal steps if you find yourself crossing-paths with this team in the marketplace, facing quantifiable damages from their falsehoods.

Note that it's possible they've been sloppy in attribution and cutting/pasting, but truly have made proprietary additions/improvements representing new IP, and intend to operate a real business. (The email-relayed info may have morphed somewhat in the retelling.)

On the other hand, sometimes people run total scams where they carbon-copy an entire website to create the false impression of competence, to raise money for immediate theft. If that's the situation, what you publish and say now could someday prove important in a civil or criminal case against the fraudsters. You'll want to make it very clear you're not coordinating with them in any way.

</comment><comment><USER23> Isn't the Apache license free of attribution? I'm not sure on the exact requirements on that license.

If I put a product together with open source components, does that make it less useful? Did I infringe on intellectual rights by putting together something with open source components?

</comment><comment><USER24> You should talk to a lawyer who specializes in IP. IANAL, but they don't own the IP -- they license it from you. Whether that means they owe you anything would depend on the specifics of the case, and that's something you'll need an attorney to figure out.

</comment><comment><USER25> First, check whether they're in compliance with the Apache license, particularly the terms in section 4 regarding attribution and notices. If you can find specific evidence that they violated one of those terms, your position is strengthened enormously.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sorry bro, You consult them and offer a deal $$$.

If everything true, they raised 1M with just showing open source project, the VC must be funny guy, lol.

Since you are not mentioned what is your project, links to your repository, 100000+ people use jquery, bootstrap etc libraries, they leave the links as it is.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think the main problem that you'll have is proving damages. Sure, maybe they did something morally wrong or even illegal but there is no point to suing if they didn't cause any damage to you.

</comment><comment><USER28> Are they based in the US? From experience, your ability to fight them will be extremely limited of they are based in China or Russia or Indonesia (as happened to some of our IP).

</comment><comment><USER29> Offtopic but if possible, you should tell the name of the investor. I don't think any decent investor would forget to do such basic checks as part of due diligence.

</comment><comment><USER30> Hit them up and see if you can get a support contract.

</comment><comment><USER31> Let us know how it resolves.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's not common practice, and it's not ethical, what they're doing.

That said, it's more good for you than it is bad. The investor reached out to you. Use this as an opportunity to get face time. Get him to know you. He wants something from you (probably, not to sue the company and to give them a license on fair terms). Get as much in the way of social currency (introductions to other investors, face time with important people) as you can out of this. But, over all, see it as an opportunity to make friends rather than enemies.

The investors, if they're any good at their jobs, aren't going to let someone just steal your idea and claim credit. They're supposed to catch that in due diligence. Your job, at this point, is to be firm in negotiations and get all the social capital you can, but ultimately (unless it's unethical or against what you stand for) to try to make sure that the investors get what they want out of the process, and know you in a positive way in the future. As repulsive as _The Wire_ 's Stan Valchek may be, I take from him a choice quote: "kid, careers have been launched on a helluva lot less". You have leverage; use to it get introductions and social proof and to make friends, rather than making enemies.

</comment><comment><USER33> If this isn't lies, and you live in a country with IP laws, it's easy:

Step 1. Validate your claim is legit; documentation and everything goes a long way. Archive.org is actionable in court (for fun, I put up an article on how I can invalidate several Microsoft patents, due to my prior art from 2000 - <USER2> patent was in 2008).

Step 2. Get in touch with your own lawyers, after getting some advice on RocketLawyer or similar. To whit, I could not get a lawyer to take my case last year, despite prior case rules in California, referral from a District Attorney AND a victory in California court through mediation, with more charges still pending against the startup.

Step 3. Assuming even like me, you have legal precedent, history and proof - you need funding. Apparently, as I have found, nobody gives a !@#$@$ in the United States of America about actual crime. I've got a ton of documentation, the only thing I have yet to do is literally _CALL_ the police, and ask, point blank, "Why is that man not in jail?"

Step 4. Now that you how hard this uphill battle is guaranteed to be, if you have the proof, if you have the lawyer friends, finally - do you have the money? Can you get it? If that's true on both, review your stomach, because it'll be a long, hard battle. Family, friends and business associates have all "Disowned me," for various reasons, even though I was the victim. Unreal, but true. See Gamergate as well - the victim loses in the modern USA, at least. Other countries, like Maldives, Costa Rica - the victim also loses.

Step 5. Prepare to lose your professional reputation, even if you win in mediation. I'd love to say that if you win in court, like Michael Jackson before you, that somehow, people realize it wasn't you who did wrong. However, sadly, many people still believe he's a pedophile, many people don't believe I was robbed and fired while my boss was in Hawaii, my step-dad in hospital with 10% chance to live.

Sorry, bro. If you want a referral to awesome lawyers, I'm happy to help and do whatever it takes to help somebody. I care. I just wish other people would, too.

<comment><USER7> He released the IP under an open source license.

Litigating this is both foolhardy and an uphill battle. Even if he can prove that they weren't giving proper credit, it's extremely hard to prove damages when there is an open source license.

<comment><USER33> Proving damages, with open source on the backs of funding, is relatively easy for an attorney with startup experienc, knows how much it costs to build a brand + reputation, etc. Then you can put together a financial model on, "Opportunity cost," re-coup it in a civil case, on top of and after the criminal case is finished. A good law firm will file both separately.

Nice, though, for crapping on his chances. I love the positive thinking.

<comment><USER7> What criminal case?

They have every right to use his software. Under the Apache license, they typically don't even have to publicly admit to using it.

Their only fault is likely glossing over the exact details of what code they wrote and what code they licensed, and even that only in private with investors.

I just don't see how there's any sort of case here. They haven't infringed on any IP.

<comment><USER34> Certainly not criminal. The Apache license has stipulations for attribution, if someone is claiming your copyrighted work as their own and stripping attributions to attain funds then it could be argued that the code was distributed among them against the license and with the intention of violating it for financial gain.

<comment><USER7> > and forgot to remove the links to my site

Sounds like attributions are intact. The startup might be misrepresenting things to investors in conversations, but if the actual code attribution is in place then it'd be very difficult to prove a violation of the license.

<comment><USER33> So, thanks for the downvote. I had a suspicion, given the venom, then reviewed your LinkedIn profile.

Before saying, "There is no criminal case," review some facts - and the legal aspects of state vs nation in the US of A. If a law passes in say, New York - it doesn't impact people in my home state of California. It can be used as precedent...but, seriously.

I've gone toe to toe with multiple governments about their own legal system and _Neither_ of us is a lawyer...right? Right. So, as I mentioned, get somebody qualified, pursue _both_ sets of charges. Financial fraud and racketeering, given the nature of the issue (VC funding) are Federal, not State, issues.

Wow. Please, please next time if it's legal, you're not a lawyer and have zero experience...let the adults talk who have been there. My 14 year old knows the American legal system better, who hasn't lived here two years, and holds multiple passports.

What's your excuse again?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What project have they stolen? and b) who are they? Give us web links, we may be able to help....</comment>


In Praise of bell hooks - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/books/bell-hooks-min-jin-lee-aint-i-a-woman.html <comment><USER2> "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love" is the most revelatory book I've read, I think ever. It discusses the ways power- and domination-based roles for men negatively affect both men and women, starting in boyhood. It felt like every page held a connection to my experiences.

<comment><USER3> Coincidentally, I was recently watching a Sapolsky interview where he went into detail about how the Beta male primates with many grooming partners were healthier and happier than the Alphas.

So then, where does the desire to be an Alpha originate if it is so stressful and destructive?

<comment><USER4> Healthier, happier, and have more offspring[1], which invalidates some sibling comments.

[1]: [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/male-gorillas-who- bab...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/male-gorillas-who-babysit-have- five-times-more-babies)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really love bell hook's work. Feminism is for Everybody was a clear and concise discussion of the issues of race, class, sex, and gender and I truly wish more critical theory books were up to that standard.

<comment> 549362-30499 Yeah, Feminism is for Everybody is really fantastic and accessible. I think the online anti-feminist/MRA set would be surprised with how much they agree with hooks.

<comment><USER6> Carl Benjamin, an "anti sjw" YouTuber actually read and reviewed one of her books[1], and liked her unpretentious and communicative writing style, even if he disagreed with some of her ideas.

I for one like her too, but I find that when some media critics try to apply her methodology to pop culture, it can be problematic and clumsy.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCMMFJIolo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCMMFJIolo)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> for any sociology fans, I've always loved hook's idea of living on the margin as a site of resistance

[http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~mma/teaching/MS80/readings/hooks.p...](http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~mma/teaching/MS80/readings/hooks.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER8> I really like what I've read of bell hooks' work. I'm interested to see what the hackernews crowd makes of it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great read. Somewhat of an off-topic question, but here goes:

> Watkins wanted her pen name to be spelled in lowercase to shift the > attention from her identity to her ideas.

I'm sure what I'm about to say has been discussed before — but wouldn't this accomplish the opposite effect? I feel her "unconventional" name makes me focus more on it, not less (especially when her name is used at the beginning of a sentence, where we are trained to expect a capital letter no matter what). Do other people with lowercase names have similar justifications?

<comment><USER10> I just don't think that third parties like newspapers should use these kinds of stylings any more than they should allow someone to specify that their name must always be printed in Times New Roman. The headline is super confusing because of this affectation — it seems like you know, a hook that you hang a bell from.

<comment><USER11> And they apply it inconsistently. "bell hooks" and "iPhone" get their desired capitalization, but "reddit" always came out as "Reddit" (or, sometimes, "Reddit, stylized as 'reddit'"), despite any wishes/requests to just use "reddit."

<comment><USER12> As far as I'm aware, the proper name of the site was always "Reddit". The logo graphic stylizes it as "reddit", and e.g. Wikipedia points that out for clarity, but official communications use the capital letter.

<comment><USER13> I think [https://www.reddit.com/user/kemitche](https://www.reddit.com/user/kemitche) might be a bit more familiar with the official rEDDit style, to be fair.

<comment><USER14> PhasmaFelis appears to be correct, though. Wikipedia says it's officially Reddit, and Paul Graham always refers to it as Reddit in old writing. Were you thinking of another source? I understand that you've linked to a former staff member's reddit account, but it just looks like staff members wanted Reddit to be referred to as "reddit" even though that wasn't the official capitalization of the name.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Now that TrueCrypt is long gone. What FOSS alternatives are there? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Veracrypt - [https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt](https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt)</comment>


Keyboard Maestro 8.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.stairways.com/press/2017-09-19 <comment><USER2> This app is seriously amazing.

I recently wrote about how I use it together with Typinator to completely automate writing text :

[https://medium.com/@NikitaVoloboev/write-once-never-write- ag...](https://medium.com/@NikitaVoloboev/write-once-never-write- again-c2fa1f6c4e8)

There is also a video in the end where it shows all of its powers in action.

And I share all the interesting Keyboard Maestro macros I use in a list here :

[https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/km- macros](https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/km-macros)

<comment><USER3> A shortcut for "this"? Don't you spend too much time triggering shortcuts and looking up the letter from the palettes than actually touch typing some of the words?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Keyboard Maestro and BetterTouchTool have been my favorite Mac utilities for many years.

One tiny example: I use hidutil + Keyboard Maestro to map my Caps Lock key to CMD+Tab. I found that constantly hitting CMD+Tab throughout the day caused me some wrist strain.

So instead, I now map my Caps Lock to Keypad 0 using hidutil. And then I use Keyboard Maestro to invoke CMD+Tab everytime Keypad 0 occurs. So now, CMD+Tab is just a single keystroke. It's a small win, but it's something that I do many many times per day.

A second example: I use 1Password, but _sometimes_ some apps or sites DO NOT allow me to paste my password. Ugh. So I use a Keyboard Maestro macro to type out my copied password. Now that I think of it, I hope they're not stealing all my passwords! ;-)

<comment><USER5> > A second example: I use 1Password, but sometimes some apps or sites DO NOT > allow me to paste my password. Ugh. So I use a Keyboard Maestro macro to > type out my copied password. Now that I think of it, I hope they're not > stealing all my passwords! ;-)

This is something I haven't thought of! Thanks a lot for the tip!

<comment><USER4> Here's my macro:

[https://i.imgur.com/zkaxakJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/zkaxakJ.png)

It just types out whatever is in my clipboard. I use it for copying and inserting credit card numbers and passwords, since some sites don't allow you to paste into those text fields.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Quite surprised to see Perth, Western Australia. I was wondering if there were any developers left in my home town, the (now second) most isolated city in the world.

Kudos to the team on the release.

[http://blog.id.com.au/2012/population/population- trends/is-p...](http://blog.id.com.au/2012/population/population-trends/is- perth-the-most-remote-city-in-the-world/)

<comment><USER7> I too am from Perth and am also often amused to hear of any form of software development industry in our home town .. but it has to be said that Perth can produce some very interesting technology outliers at times. Just look at whats happening with 3D-printing in Perth, for example (AuroraLabs) .. some truly innovative folks still living there.

<comment><USER8> IBM have a development team there in Hay St, I used to work with them, a few years back. There's software development going on at the RAC too, a variety of mining related software companies and ... I thin kthere was something about video surveillance cams for public transport. Oh and a couple of ISPs, probably not developing much.

That's about all I remember encountering from my time living in Perth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lots of people are saying how they love this app. I'd be interested in reading examples of how people are using it.

I wish the author provided the source code, even if they continued charging money. Based on the functionality I'm guessing it'll require enabling accessibility, which means it can essentially hijack your computer. I've been slowly whittling down my usage of closed-source third-party apps in order to reduce my effective "circle of trust" and reduce the chances of being subject to attacks. Why are commercial open source apps so uncommon? Textual is an example of one such app, but I can't think of many others.

<comment><USER10> In practice, if something was truly open-source, there'd be nothing to prevent someone who didn't like you from building your app with each new release and putting on a web site for anyone to download for free. You might be the kind of guy who would pay $40 for good software, but a lot of people would get the free version and not pay. This is the eternal conundrum of open source.

Here's a modified idea, perhaps still not good enough but hopefully a step down the path. When you purchase the product, you receive access to the source code for the version that was then-current one year ago. Granted, you are not sure the current code doesn't have malware. But you can be confident, based on the history of the product, that it did not have malware for a long time. (And were you really going to scan the diffs for each release for malware anyway?) You could also allow trusted third-parties under NDA to review all diffs for the current code base and certify that they didn't see anything malicious.

This also ensures that should your company disappear, at the very worst, the user community will have a not-too-old version of the software to fall back on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This app is so good, I use it to automate project workflows in iterm2. Something like, open terminal -> create tabs -> switch folders -> run services, etc. Also, remaping keystrokes to create macros and using hjkl as arrows.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just downloaded it, gave it a try, and already in love with it! Will definitely buy it later today.

What I did with it: Automated searching a project name in an app called Todoist where I have to hit slash to go to the search field, enter a `#` sign as a prefix for project names, hit the down arrow key to select the project name that is suggested and finally hit enter key. This'll go right to that project. Now I hit a hotkey, enter a partial name for the project and enter. It'll open Todoist or put focus on it and open the appropriate project.

It was super easy to create the macro.

</comment><comment><USER10> Keyboard Maestro is one of the most underrated apps for power users. I had it for a long time and finally began to realize what amazing power you get with this tool. Others also mentioned BetterTouchTool. With that and Keyboard Maestro, if you have that little thing you wish an app would allow you to do, most of the time you can do it by using these two tools.

As Ferris Beuller said, if you have the means (and almost all of you do), I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting app is there an alternative for linux?

<comment><USER14> AutoHotKey was already mentioned, which I use on windows. I have been looking for an alternative that I can also use on Linux and Mac OS and found SikuliX ([http://www.sikulix.com/](http://www.sikulix.com/)). Note that I have no idea if either AutoHotKey or SikuliX are actually capable of replicating the functionality of Keyboard Maestro since I've never used Keyboard Maestro.

Also recently I found a cross platform automation system written in go that looks promising: robotgo ([https://github.com/go- vgo/robotgo](https://github.com/go-vgo/robotgo)). I might try to use robotgo to replace the AutoHotKey scripts in my own little Unity3D command line tool unity_do ([https://github.com/rakete/unity_do](https://github.com/rakete/unity_do)) in the future. So I don't have any experience with it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really want to get into these types of apps as I think it will greatly improve my work speed. But I am always afraid of becoming over-dependent on these tools. I commonly change environments in my work, so I often have to adapt to new systems.

If these tools are somehow portable via usb/internet sync, I think I would start to use them more.

<comment><USER16> Keyboard Maestro has a sync option, but of course you'd still be reliant on a mac.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have this, and I do believe what people say about how powerful it is. However, I find the UI to be very alien and very unlike any other software I have used (especially on Mac).

<comment><USER18> How so? It's essentially trying (and, IMO, succeeding) to make coding drag and droppable. While some things can be a bit difficult to get going, overall it works extremely well I think.

<comment><USER17> First and foremost, the state indicators are very confusing.

For example, when you create a new macro, the macro editor shows a button to the right of the name that is either a check or an X. If you click the check (which would mean what, anyway?), it switches to an X. Did you just complete some action by "checking" it? Apparently, clicking the Check button _disables_ the macro. Clicking the X enables the macro. To me that seems backwards, but either way it's a very poor state indicator+driver.

Then you have inconsistent behaviors of the + buttons. In the Groups and Macros columns, their + buttons add a new element. But in the macro editor, the + button causes an action panel to slide up over the Groups and Macros sections. So + doesn't add a macro step, it just shows you the things you can select from (and drag) to build the macro.

Now, the - (minus) button on the macro panel... it doesn't remove the panel that the + just popped up; it deletes the current macro action. To remove the panel, you have to click the grayed out + button.

And when you're done adding a macro action, should you click the check button on the bottom? Apparently not; that toggles the last action on or off.

Ok, so you've got an action. Want to add another action? If the panel with all the available actions is open, can you drag one down below your last action (repeating the same behavior you followed to add the first action? Nope. You have to click that grayed out + button to remove the actions panel. Then a new button appears below the last aciton - "\+ New Action". Click that, and the action selection panel slides up again. Drag another action down to the macro panel and ... oops! That doesn't work!? But that's how we got the first action there, and we just clicked "\+ New Action" (and it showed us the action choices). Ahh, this time you must double click the action you want - not drag it. Now it appears in the macro actions window.

The UI is a wreck. The app is great, but the UI seems like another entry here: [https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/6/9/15768800/reddit- worst...](https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/6/9/15768800/reddit-worst-volume- sliders-ui-design)

<comment><USER19> I'll have to agree with you here. The UI needs some serious work. You will get used to it's quirks after a while though.

Even with that major flaw, it's probably the best "bang for the buck" software I've ever owned. Period.

Edit: And.. as mentioned elsewhere - the support truly _is_ fantastic. You can tell the developer is really passionate about this project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I bought this app but was never able to unlock its potential.

All the tutorials that I read seem to be too complicated.

Anyone can point to easy to understand tutorials for creating workflows?

<comment><USER21> I seem to remember that Macstories has a few good tutorials: [https://www.macstories.net/tag/keyboard- maestro/](https://www.macstories.net/tag/keyboard-maestro/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I absolutely love this app too.

And for the record their support is _amazing_ , very knowledgeable and responsive.

</comment><comment><USER23> I use it quite often to type in unicode characters like ⌘, or music sharp/flats, etc.</comment>


The Scariest Company in Tech - <AUTHOR> http://rvqs.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/the-scariest-company-in-tech/ <comment><USER2> A vertically integrated manufacturer does _not_ necessarily mean their costs will be dramatically lower than the competition.

For example, Apple doesn't do any manufacture themselves, and yet they have costs so much lower than the competition that they are able to define entire new markets in the time it takes for their competition to develop cost- competitive supplies.

This has happened three times now, firstly with the original iPods (Apple pre- signed huge contracts for those tiny hard drives, proved the market, and when competitors wanted in they had to wait for new sources to come online), the iPod touch (Apple pre-ordered a huge proportion of the worlds flash memory supply) and finally, most recently with the iPad.

Ever wonder why it's taken a year for anyone to build a 9"/10" iPad competitor? It's because no one can get capacitative touch screen in sufficient quantities. Even Samsung (which owns the factory!) had to make do with 7" screens.

Now, finally new factories are beginning to come online, which means that competitors can release their products. The problem for them is that Apple locked in much lower prices (because of their bigger purchasing power), which makes it hard to compete on price. This applies to Samsung as much as to anyone - they can't afford to drop Apple as a customer, but the capital costs of building a new factory means it costs them more to supply themselves (selling in smaller volume) than it does to supply Apple.

<comment><USER3> Interesting, I thought Apple didn't know they would get such a hit with the iPad? They had gotten options on production?

I assumed the problem was developing something that could compete with the software (which might have happened with Android 3?).

Edit: My problem with Samsung is abandonware -- drivers, etc -- but I don't know if they are worse than others.

<comment><USER4> IIRC, Apple was predicting iPad sales of 10M in 2010, which many analysts scoffed at. Also, IIRC, they sold 7M in just the last quarter of 2010 (admittedly, the holiday season). So yeah, I believe Apple was pretty confident.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just as in Mike Elgan's analysis of Nokia, it doesn't look like Samsung have any idea how to create a sensible range of products. There are 18 touch screen phones available in the UK (out of 75 phones in total):

[http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/mobile- pho...](http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/mobile-phones/touch- screen/index.idx?pagetype=subtype)

If I were King of Samsung, this would be cut down to around three models. The model names would be consistent, recognisable, and the names would not be discarded when the phones are updated. This way, when my Samsung Galaxy Pro is due for a replacement, I can go and ask for the latest generation Samsung Galaxy Pro. No need to spend ages trying to figure out which of the vast selection is supposed to be the flagship, or which is the budget model. The laptop situation is even worse. What's scary is how nobody but Apple seem to have figured this out.

<comment><USER6> When your aim is ubiquity, 18 models of the same basic product is a positive, not a negative. Apple and Samsung are playing entirely different games. Apple is built on brand and large profit margins, Samsung on controlling the components and being everywhere. They are equally valid plans, but Apple's way is more likely to win fans.

<comment><USER7> But Apple is successfully training customers that it is nice to be able to shop a simple product line. People are tired of being confused, and Apple makes it trivial to not be confused.

Samsung's ubiquity game isn't going to work if the customers are sick of playing it.

<comment><USER4> Agreed.

I know there's going to be an 'iPhone' for a long time to come, and I'm confident now that there'll be a peripherals ecosystem around it. I have no such confidence that _any_ other company will keep the same model of phone around for more than a few years. Even the mighty RAZR seemed to lose the support of Motorola - RAZR, ROKR, PEBL, SLVR variations came out, and now none of them are being actively pursued - MOTO shifted focus to Android as 'flavor of the month'. They'll have no such problems shifting to something else more profitable in 2 years if it suits them, leaving everyone who purchased or supported current phones high and dry.

<comment><USER8> Knowing Apple, I have no confidence that the peripherals that work for this iPhone will keep working for the next.

<comment><USER7> I sort of agree with this statement, in that I do think that Apple will mercilessly drop support for things that they think aren't worth continuing support. Alternatively, I think that helps keep their platform healthy. Compare OS X to Windows as an example: one of Microsoft's core tenets is backwards compatibility, and it means their platform has been a mess (you can still write Win16!! applications)[1].

[1] "Has been" because it has been a while since I've written anything at that win api layer and I'm assuming it has been cleaned up a lot since they now virtualize access to old APIs.

<comment><USER8> I partially agree, except that they've been known to make _forwards_ -incompatible docks just so you had to buy new ones with your phone, even though it's basically just a USB extension. I don't think that's justifiable...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The OP's argument rests on the notion that Samsung could somehow make phones so compelling that they take over 80% of the market. I don't think they can do that on price alone. Their price advantage over LG, HTC, etc could be what... 10%? They need more of an advantage than that to have Microsoft-level dominance.

And even though they have the price advantage over the other "premium" vendors, they are fighting a war on two fronts. The ultra cheap vendors can undercut even Samsung by doing things like using super cheap plastic, having batteries that stop working after 6 months, dead pixels, and a software team of like 2 people who just maintain a couple drivers and slap some shitty graphics and free apps on top of stock Android.

So Samsung's playground is a sizeable but bounded slice in the middle: people who don't care about having the BEST phone, and want it to be really cheap, but not _cheap_ cheap. Cheap, but on-brand.

Microsoft had no real competition. No one else was really licensing an OS for commodity hardware. Apple, IBM, Sun et all were all selling their OS on their own hardware.

Samsung is beset on all sides by competition, and they only hold one of the Aces (supply chain).

<comment><USER10> Yeah, Samsung's Android devices may look pretty, but the software builds are not only very slow to be upgraded (mostly 'cause they want you to buy the new hardware, which is kind of stupid on their part) but they actually have very poor performance running apps. I've used multiple members of the Galaxy S family and have a Galaxy Tab for development purposes and to put it mildly they suck from a software perspective. The Tab arbitrarily locks up depending on the software you're running (as in stops responding, requires a hard reset to be usable again), their Bluetooth implementation is terrible and doesn't function right (I guess their choice of Bluetooth hardware didn't work with the default Android drivers so they had to write their own; somehow software that runs perfectly on a Nexus One or Motorola/LG hardware totally keels over on Samsung hardware) and their customized software overlay is amazingly sluggish.

Lets not get into the monstrosities that are their feature phone operating systems. I for one don't believe anyone is in danger from Samsung.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _There is one area in which Samsung is lacking: software. Unlike Apple or RIM, they are entirely dependent on Android. [...] That, however, could change completely if Samsung dominates the Android market like I think it will._

Want to be even more scared?

<http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=News>

:-)

<comment><USER12> I don't get it, I thought Samsung Bada was not a secret project anymore?

<http://www.bada.com/> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_%28operating_system%29>

<comment><USER11> I don't think he's talking about Bada (certainly not current Bada... though what he's doing might relate to future-Bada).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would find this more plausible if my Samsung Android devices were

a) regularly updated with Android tech as opposed to seemingly lagging the rest of the industry

b) supported worth a hill of beans instead of getting a "uhhhh we don't support that in the US market" when asking about AT&T

c) a good demonstration of Android capabilities in the first place.

Samsung makes decent phones. Nothing spectacular. The GPS in the Galaxy class phones draws endless complaints about bugginess. The builds deployed on AT&T are mediocre. Their Kies desktop software is bloated, slow, and unreliable - it's frequently the case that disconnecting and reconnecting the phone/tablet fails to recognize it (and in turn it doesn't work with a number of US SKUs, thanks to AT&T).

Sorry gang. There's the potential there to be great. But it's quite a leap from there to dominance. Nokia has had plenty of potential and in the past a pretty dominant position too, but I think the shellacking they took the last few days here on HN is entirely deserved and demonstrative of "you have to nail all facets of the user experience."

<comment><USER6> This position assumes that dominance requires a base of greatness/nailing all the facets of user experience. While I wish it were true, I haven't really seen that play out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> One interesting competitor to Samsung is Vizio. While they only really have a presence in Home theater equipment, I find them to be very interesting. They are a completely new player. In a lot of ways they are similar to Hyundai. Hyundai essentially had no name brand or history to sell it's products. So they built the best car they could and sold it at a great price. The Hyundai Genesis was born. Now Hyundai is becoming more and more popular and is getting the credit they deserve. Vizio is similar. As a new player, it seems they just decided to make great products at affordable prices. In doing so, they have managed to keep up with huge companies like Sony and Samsung.

I would like to see a company like that enter the mobile market. Someone who makes a product that speaks for itself.

<comment><USER15> Vizio isn't a Samsung competitor, really. It's basically an American front for AmTran, a Taipei-based contract manufacturer. Neither AmTran, nor Vizio make their own electronics/panels (one integrates, the other brands/markets). I wouldn't bet the house that Samsung didn't actually make the panels that go into Vizio TVs...it's a crazy world over there!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think it's interesting the author doesn't mention Bada <http://www.bada.com> , Samsung's new OS for mobile that's designed to be an "open" competitor to the other mobile OSes out there.

I tried signing up to be a developer about a year ago when they first announced it and I had a under-powered feature phone (Samsung Behold I), yet was discouraged by the fees and other associated things to even sign up...

After reading the Wikipedia page on it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_%28operating_system%29#Cri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bada_%28operating_system%29#Criticism) ...I'm glad I saw the light and bought an iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-to-buy-78-billion- in-...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-to-buy-78-billion-in-samsung- parts-report-2011-02-13)

From link "Apple Inc. (AAPL 356.85, +2.31, +0.65%) is expected to purchase components used for its handheld devices from Samsung Electronics Co. worth about $7.8 billion this year, the Korea Economic Daily reported Monday, citing industry sources.

The paper also said that Samsung will supply Apple with liquid crystal displays, mobile application processors and NAND flash memory chips used for the U.S. company's iPhones and iPads.

If the contract pushes through, Apple will become Samsung's largest customer, the paper added."

<comment><USER18> Apple also reported in one of their financial calls that they spent $4.9 Billion out of the war chest to secure future supplies of components they consider critical. They didn't say which ones they were... but I think they feel the market is there for any of the others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If samsung operates their business units independently, and don't play favorites, then Apple can easily have the purchasing power with Samsung Displays the Samsung Phones has. However, if samsung plays a slightly dirtier game, then they risk losing Apple as a customer and can't sustain a competitive advantage in displays. Nobody buys an Apple phone for the Samsung memory or display. Likewise, no one will stop buying those items if Apple switches to a different vendor.

</comment><comment><USER20> From the linked post - "What made the PC industry a commodity industry was that none of the big PC manufacturers at any point controlled the important components or shipped those components en masse."

The author never gives proof that Samsung "controls" any of the important components of a smartphone. Don't they merely license their chip designs from ARM, Qualcomm, etc? Is their screen technology based on in-house IP or are they basically commodity manufacturers of new technology? In the absence of these arguments, this article felt like fluff from someone that's seen the word "Samsung" on the BOM for a few phones.

Also, a company's manufacturing and distribution prowess has almost nothing to do with their ability to create a popular consumer software platform. See: Nokia. The only reason Samsung can be mentioned is that they've rapidly adopted Google's operating system. Surmising that they could fork Android is as absurd as imagining that Dell or Asus could alone create a Linux distro that could compete with Windows.

</comment><comment><USER21> A Microsoft-level monopoly is impossible in the phone market. Why? Not enough lock-in. People bought Microsoft because it was cheap, but _also_ because buying a mac would make you _that guy_ , whose powerpoint presentation never worked, whose Word files always looked funky, who always had trouble getting on the intranet. No matter how much embracing and extending a phone OS does, an Android phone can call a WP7 phone can call an iOS phone can call a Symbian phone can call a ...

"You can only call your friends (or 911) if they've got a Samsung"? I don't see that working too well. (Especially because, in the US, a call that sounds bad or doesn't go through on Samsung to X will be blamed on the Network, so the carriers will just leave Samsung (or whomever) out in the cold.)

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't think Samsung cares about software. They are primarily a manufacturing concern, and their lineup of branded phones and devices is just a way to eke out more value from that existing capacity.

Could be that manufacturing capacity is slack, or they need a technology demonstration for design firms that otherwise aren't moving quickly enough ("Hey, we have all this stuff, let's make something cool out of it!").

That'd explain why they were one of the first Android tablets out there, especially with Android not really being tablet-ready. That kind of risk could break a firm that had to outsource manufacturing. But Samsung already had all the hardware pieces; they just had to drop in the software.

</comment><comment><USER23> Samsung forks Android. Google refuses to license Google Android software to it. Goodbye Market, Gmail, Nav, etc.

Sorry, just don't see that happening.

Oh, and HTC's phones are so much better quality than the Samsung phones.

</comment><comment><USER24> I find myself completely unable to tell if the comments on this post are spam or not. Except for that one with the poorly thought out flame about Apple, which seems real enough.

</comment><comment><USER25> you are talking of the Samsung Linux Platform [this is not Bada nor Android ], to be launched in 2011. It uses 2.6.32-es Linux, X Window System, Enlightenment Foundation Libraries (EFL), GTK keretrendszer, Gstreamer etc.

Applications are C/C++ UI is GTK/EFL. Has multitasking and Debian package management.

[http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/2011/02/samsung-is- backing-...](http://jeffhoogland.blogspot.com/2011/02/samsung-is-backing- linux-slp.html)

[http://www.oss.kr/?module=file&act=procFileDownload&...](http://www.oss.kr/?module=file&act=procFileDownload&file_srl=1609&sid=96028cc2f522ec804ec973e9b92d5bd9)

now let us wonder about the non-goog customers of canonical, with Unity, the need to ditch X11, ditch Gnome3 …fresh release of GTK3.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it would be wise, as this article does, to not think about the phone market in terms of platforms (iOS, Android, RIM & WebOS) but in terms of manufacturers (Apple, HTC, Nokia, Samsung, etc.)

If you look at it in those terms, there are two manufacturers that are vertically integrated- Apple and Samsung.

Samsung is weak on software, and software is the critical component of this age (more important than flash, RAM or SoCs). Meanwhile, Apple is a design house, and doesn't have manufacturing capability of its own.

So, one question is whether owning your own plants will be critical or not.

Consider this possibility- it is like the Windows market, only instead of it being a licensed OS, it is Apple, and Apple devices, but HTC et. al. become contract manufacturers for Apple. The margins may not be any better than competing in the commodity phone market, but the R&D and marketing costs are a lot less, and so they may be more profitable.

I'm sure this goes against their DNA, but unless FoxConn can expand enough to cover the demand (for Apple and for everybody else) I can see the commoditization happening at the manufacturing level, rather than the device level, as it did in the PC market.

Samsung has had a decade to replicate the iPod, or to build a video game system. I don't know if they will be able to build the expertise or find the mojo that Apple has on software.

I don't think Apple is going to start building plants nor will they build expertise in lithography, etc.

But I think that while software is easy to commoditize (eg: Android) a quality software experience is much harder. Meanwhile, it is cheaper to be a contract manufacturer for a %5 margin than it is to try and compete with your own products.

So, Apple could be the new Microsoft, and Samsung could be the new Apple-- if software is what matters. The reverse could occur if lithography expertise is what ends up mattering.

<comment><USER2> Apple isn't vertically integrated at all. As you note, they don't own any production facilities, and outsource all production. Almost the total opposite of Samsung, who so almost everything themselves.

I guess I'm a bit confused what you think _vertically integrated_ means?

<comment><USER18> Apple designs the software, the hardware industrial design, the circuit boards, the processor and even the screens. Samsung merely manufactures things, and does not design the software (for android phones) or the CPU etc.

But of course what matters on this site is bashing apple and pretending like they suck, even if you have to redefine terms like "Vertically integrated" and be snide about it.

<comment><USER2> Actually, Samsung does all that (including as much CPU design as Apple does: [http://hothardware.com/News/Analysts-Confirm- Apples-A4-Simil...](http://hothardware.com/News/Analysts-Confirm- Apples-A4-Similar-to-Samsung-CPU/) ) except for the core Android software. However, they do have Badu, which is their own custom OS.

I was genuinely puzzled what you meant by "vertically integrated". Now at least I understand what you are talking about - I still don't think that's a conventional definition of vertical integration - but my response wasn't trying to be snide.

<comment><USER26> Apple is "forward" vertical integration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hope Samsung sticks with hardware... they should stay far, far away from software.

I (sadly) still use a Samsung Instinct and the OS is of their own design. If you've ever used Samsung's Instinct you'd know it's absolutely terrible and slow. I can't remember the last time I typed something - and I don't even type fast - and it wasn't at least a couple of seconds behind my fingers... pretty annoying when the touch screen won't calibrate and you make at least one typo every other word!

The only upside to the phone is the relative ease of "unlocking" it for use as a 4G modem.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a first post, on a dead-stock Wordpress.com installation.

Why should I bother to read about your views on Samsung when:

1\. you show neither data nor other facts on which to base your opinion

2\. you don't disclose anything about yourself?

For all I know you could be a Samsung employee trying to increase the value of his stock benefits.

<comment><USER29> The great thing about the internet is that people can express their point of views. If the idea is a good and interesting one it will be discussed. Think of it as an anonymous letter to the editor if you need.

<comment><USER30> You both make good points but this blog post still smells like a cheap marketing stunt.</comment></comment></comment>


"An oath and NDAs prevent me from disclosing the facts to back it up" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/justinschuh/status/343195634398015488 <comment><USER2> Why?</comment>


Show HN: The world's most efficient iOS keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://herokeyboard.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all. This is v2.0 of my HERO Keyboard. It's been completely re-coded for better typing action, and it adds the center "Bolt" button which you tap for SPACE, or hold (or 3D touch) to reveal numbers and your most recent emojis and symbols. On iPhone 6/7 and Plus, tilting the device moves the keyboard to the side for easier 1-thumb typing.

It's free for basic typing, with a $0.99/month subscription for premium themes and full emoji, dialpad, and symbol views. This is a self-funded project but I'm a designer not programmer, so I paid contract developers to build it. So basically, I'm out of money, and I'm hoping the v2 launch goes well enough to fund development of swipe typing, Android, GIPHY integration, text snippets, other languages, and any other helpful stuff I can think of! :) Marketing is definitely not my strength, so please let me know if you have any advice for me to help spread the idea. Thanks! -Corey

<comment><USER2> Looks interesting. I will give it a try!

Do you have any metrics on how long it takes to get through the learning curve? That's my only hesitation to trying a new keyboard layout.

Also, I'm not sure I understand why this would be a subscription service. A one time fee to unlock feature X seems much more appealing to me as a consumer. In my mind a subscription has to provide new value on a regular basis.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Leesalminen - thanks for the comment.

People report about 3 days to feel fairly comfortable on it.

As for the subscription, there will be a new theme every month, so that provides a little recurring value.

The problem I ran into with version 1 and 1.5, which just cost a buck or two upfront, was that with that business model, it takes a lot of customers to pay off continuing development costs (because the customer is essentially getting lifetime updates, all for a buck or two). And it leaves little money for customer acquisition (ie marketing).

So my hope was to: a) Provide a way to let people try the keyboard for free (which Apple's App Store policies don't make very easy to do), and b) Fund continued development so I can keep adding good features.

I admit I'm not sure I have the right pricing model, but I'm going to give it a try and see how it goes, then adjust from there. :) Pricing per feature might work, though I hate to keep upselling people, and Apple does not allow In-App Purchases to be in the keyboard area, so it doesn't work quite as well as in a normal app. Thanks for trying it! -Corey

<comment><USER2> Hi Corey,

I was unaware of the IAP limitation with keyboards. That's pretty lame and limiting.

I'll sign up for a subscription and see how I feel in a couple months.

3 days doesn't seem bad at all. Maybe you could consider pushing that in marketing materials some more?

Thanks for the reply!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, and thanks! And to clarify, Apple seems to allow IAP to exist in keyboards (a subscription is technically an IAP), but you can't promote it or initiate it from the keyboard area (I had to appeal Apple's rejection on clarifying this difference -- it's worded a bit vaguely in their policy.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you checked efficiency of yours against something like MessagEase (my current keyboard of choice)? [http://www.exideas.com/ME/index.php](http://www.exideas.com/ME/index.php)

This is my daily driver and, while the learning curve was rough, it has increased my speed and accuracy considerably. It makes coding and writing longer pieces on my phone a much simpler task.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Ginguin - thanks for the comment. I haven't checked compared them, but you're right - MessageEase and HERO were definitely designed with the same principles in mind. I didn't know they had an Apple watch app - I've considered that for HERO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even if the claim is true (that you can type faster), it will be a hardsell as it's too different from the current layout. It causes me to not be able to lend my phone to someone, etc. Same issue with drovak.

That's why swype/swiftkey which give a speed bump while retaining the current look and layout are the truly revolutionary ones, by simply utilizing the additional touch interactivity that modern tech enabled for them on top of a recognized layout.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks anilgulecha. Yeah, it's not for everyone! haha. (Side note: the Globe key can always switch it back to the normal keyboard at any time).

The claim I make is "Most efficient" (not fastest) based on the fact that during normal English typing, your finger travel will be reduced 30-35%. Theoretically, that should mean it's faster, but only if the user is become accustomed to it, so I've avoided making claims about it being faster.

I'm definitely hoping to add swipe typing to HERO when I can afford that development cost. My hope is that the 2.0 launch can fund swipe and other new features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Tap HERO's revolutionary Bolt button to enter a SPACE, or double-tap it for > period+SPACE. Hold or 3D-touch the Bolt then drag for superfast access to > numbers, cursor control, and your recent emojis and symbols.

What's revolutionary about this? These features have been implemented in iOS for very long.

> #winning / like a boss

It would be nicer without using "meme-text".

<comment><USER6> > It would be nicer without using "meme-text".

Yeah, this seems more like a parody because of this "meme" crap. Looks like author tries too hard to be cool/relevent.

Speaking of memes, [0]this is a meme about the copytext of the website.

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/VAeA885.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VAeA885.jpg)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I was a skater as a kid and now a very not-cool father of four, so that meme is not far off. :)

I'm a UX guy not a professional copywriter, so I may have missed the mark a bit. I was trying to keep it friendly and casual, and maybe a bit campy with the "HERO" theme. Anyway, I just removed a couple of the memey lines. Thanks for the feedback.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I would go with more "professional but not too professional" approach. Unless your main demographics are 13 y/o kids that is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Woman stalked by sandwich server via her Covid-19 contact tracing info - <AUTHOR> https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/05/14/woman-stalked-by-sandwich-server-via-her-covid-19-contact-tracing-info/ <comment><USER2> > [The sandwich company named] Subway required her to put her contact details > on a contact-tracing form so as to place her food order. She didn't think > anything about it: we all want to stop the spread of the pandemic, after > all. The form asked for her name, home address, email address and phone > number, all of which she put down.

I'm putting this here because some people may erroneously assume that this story is relevant to bluetooth/cellphone contact tracing.

<comment><USER3> Adding here also that the stalking in this article was of the personal harassment nature, not 'stalking' to contact them about potential COVID exposure.

It would be a nuisance to have to sign in at restaurants, especially with a physical address.

<comment><USER4> That's what "stalking" means. I sure hope no one's expanding the term to mean "contact tracing".

<comment><USER5> > I sure hope no one's expanding the term to mean "contact tracing".

I think this guy just did downthread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179458](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179458)

<comment><USER6> This is not necessarily the case. I took it to mean that Google, Apple, and the govt all have employees, some of them rouge, just like subway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > We don't know much about the form, but it sounds like it was paper, as > opposed to digital, given that Subway told Newshub that starting on > Wednesday, it will have installed a new digital contact tracing system at > all restaurants.

That sounds great. Now instead of having to worry only about the employees at the particular restaurant, you have to worry about whether Subway has properly secured their system from everybody with internet access (including all of their employees).

If the price of a Subway sandwich includes giving PII to Subway, I'll pass.

<comment><USER8> I'm sure the validation process is just "form written on". You could probably write down 867-5309 and walk out w/ your sandwich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Washington state is requiring restaurants to record the info of customers. Lots of potential for abuse like this.

<comment><USER10> That's insane! Why would they do that? And why would people hand that info over?

<comment><USER11> Because getting told when you were eating at the same restaurant as someone with a contagious disease could be life-or-death information?

(Mind you, I've no intention of going to restaurants until the infection rate is much lower!)

<comment><USER12> Why not just use the double blind google / apple tech for this? The govt requiring this level of data seems unnecessary.

<comment><USER13> To my knowledge there's no implementation of that tech. I think it's definitely not an ideal system to have it be all pen and paper, but there isn't a clear "just turn it on" solution they're ignoring here either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd trust this system if it were double-blind. The government issues an identifier to me (separate from SSN). I feel OK giving that number to restaurants. If there is a reason to initiate contract tracing, the restaurant hands its list of identifiers over to the appropriate government agency, which cracks open its vault of identifier --> contact information

Seems no less open to misinformation than the current system but gives vastly more protections to personal information. Doesn't even seem that hard to set up in the grand scheme of things.

<comment><USER15> > The government issues an identifier to me (separate from SSN). I feel OK > giving that number to restaurants.

Wow, can anyone imagine reading this in the beginning of 2019? The totalitarians come out in huge numbers recently.

It was once considered totalitarian to be asked at the East German border if one had any "contraband" (books or magazines that were frowned upon).

Now at the U.S. border one can be asked if one has any "contraband".

Next we all get a government id to pass on to private businesses. How about a "social credit" score, China style?

<comment><USER14> I can't tell if you are trolling. I'll assume good faith.

We show ID to enter bars. We show ID to buy certain products. I provide identifying information when I pick up tickets at will call. Some items (like houses, cars, guns) you have to register the purchase with a government authority

Asking about contraband was totalitarian because they were trying to control what information people had and made certain thoughts/books verboten. Customs/border patrol has asked for ... ever? what you are bringing into the country.

I'm not saying the government would get an automatic transcript of every purchase I've made. I'm saying individual restaurants could collect a list of unique but meaningless numbers on a piece of paper or wherever they want. If the restaurant gets tagged as a place where COVID is believed to be spread, then the government now has a way to contact everyone who had visited the store.

<comment><USER16> >I'm not saying the government would get an automatic transcript of every purchase I've made

You make the assumption here that governments don't trend towards looking for ways for that information to be automatically supplied in future in the name of "efficiency".

Honestly, the history of the 20th century should be the closed book final assessment on why it's permanently a bad idea for governments to collect files on people.

<comment><USER14> Given how long governments have kept records (domesday book, bablylon) and how few governments have slipped into totalitarian hellscapes, I'm not as worried about this as you are.

I'm more concerned about the patriot act & etc because a lot of those survelliance programs are actively centralized.

The system I outlined would work XX% as well if it were entirely optional and if it were managed by independent agents. You could sign up with "ID Corp", or a credit union, or whatever. And they could keep your records.

<comment><USER16> >and how few governments have slipped into totalitarian hellscapes

Just because it's improbable doesn't mean we shouldn't protect against tail risks. Not taking meaningful tail risk protection is why we're in the covid-19 problem we are now.

>I'm not as worried about this as you are.

I wouldn't want to be presumptions of your background, but have you talked with many people from countries where they or their parents were victims of state bullying via secret police that kept files on them?

>I'm more concerned about the patriot act & etc because a lot of those survelliance programs are actively centralized.

I don't think what we're talking about is any different in the long run.

>The system I outlined would work XX% as well if it were entirely optional and if it were managed by independent agents.

I'm actually not opposed to a temporary system of tracking like this in order to stamp out coronavirus. However, it needs to have iron-clad provisions in law to make it time limited, along with laws that mandate that independent international observers witness data audits and subsequent destruction of said data. Unfortunately, when governments legislate provisions, they're usually in the form of "we promise to be very good" platitudes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> But here's the thing: this kind of personal data is used daily by many companies. There's a table in a bank/telco/etc where they have your full name, your ID number, your address, your age. Any worker who has access to this (thousands of people who need that kind of access to do their jobs and to provide you with services) could've done something similar.

Recruiters are particularly stalkey sometimes with the way they keep calling your personal number without warning. While I don't understand if Subway really needs to share that much data with the person who makes your sub, the reality is that there's nothing privacy laws can do to stop some creep who works somewhere that deals with data from stalking one of their customers.

Edit: the case might be here that Subway doesn't really need to handle that kind of PII, but that should be on principle I think. The creep using that kind of data is a bit incidental.

<comment><USER12> Temp agencies are actually the WORST. If you do hiring and they get your cell phone number you are hosed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This kind of abuse has happened even before COVID-19 and contact tracing. The issue here is not just the guise of contact tracing used to collect information. Many businesses collect customer information insidiously (sometimes with offers to win a prize or for a discount). Once they collect it (usually phone and email), all bets are off on employees misusing the information.

In this case, it's beyond anyone's imagination as to why the home address would be collected. There was absolutely no need for that except someone who imagined it to be a well thought out solution (solution for what I don't know).

</comment><comment><USER19> >Newshub spoke with Privacy Commissioner John Edwards, who said that businesses should only be custodians of the information they're given for public health purposes. Doing otherwise could leave the public with a strong distaste for handing over their details

Is this some sort of official government program? The response by the privacy commissioner ("should") suggests that there won't be any legal consequences for businesses that misuse the data.

<comment><USER20> It's a burden the government is imposing on businesses, ideally you want a high legal bar before suing for misuse or you will create noncompliance. A rogue employee should not be one.

For example, let's assume you add a bunch of requirements to implementation, say specific encrypted terminals. Now restaurants can't get those for months. What will they do, close? Ignore it all together?

We are in a pandemic, the main focus should be collecting the contact tracing information while still feeding people. If this were to last years we can also solve all privacy concerns, but it's really hard to do in two months.

<comment><USER21> They already made businesses close with no recourse. Why is it crazy to require businesses to follow specific procedures if they want to re-open? Why shouldn't those procedures be designed to protect the public?

<comment><USER20> It's not crazy to have specific procedures, but think about unintended consequences. The procedures need to be achievable in the real world, not so burdensome they can't or won't be followed.

Maybe a better example, let's say NZ institutes a $50,000 fine per each occurrence of misuse of personal information collected per their requirements. Now a small business owner could find out they are facing a $250,000 fine and bankruptcy because of one horny employee violating their specific trading instructions. What restaurant would ever take that risk?

If the government wants to force businesses to collect personal information, it better be prepared to provide secure means of collecting and communicating that information to them. And it should indemnify the businesses for any liability from release of that information that's not willful or intentional.

If the business faithfully follows the rules, punish the perpetrator, not the business owner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sorry but having to share my contact info at a business is a step too far for me, and is a breach of individual liberty that I am not willing to participant in. Apart from privacy concerns like in the linked article, I think it is also the kind of normalization of authoritarian mechanisms that we just do not need. Some may call this a slippery slope fallacy, but to them I say that slippery slopes / boiling the frog are an effective way to go from a minor breach of liberty to something more dangerous, all with the public's support along the way.

</comment><comment><USER23> It sounds like the NZ government is requiring businesses to do this, without much guidance as to how businesses do it, so that seems like error #1. Or am I misunderstanding? The article mentions Subway is moving to a secure computer system to retain the information... that does not seem much better.</comment>


Hacker news directory: search + projects - <AUTHOR> http://jmtame.posterous.com/hacker-news-directory-search-projects#

<comment><USER2> It isn't exactly clear until you hit the actual site - <http://www.hndir.com/> \- that this is only for students. Just a heads up in case you aren't.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how many man-hours Facebook initially put in while restricting users to schools only, man-hours that would have been saved if they just used the current "Facebook is for everyone!" mindset that they have now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I joined, and created my school. I've gotten four e-mails about new students joining my network despite no-one else actually being there. Not a huge deal, especially since gmail put them all into a single message thread, but it should probably be looked at.

It might be nice to have a field for people to list their personal websites. You'll find mine if you google me, but people with more common names are going to have trouble.

<comment><AUTHOR> should be fixed now, sorry about that

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What about students studying outside of the US? Most universities in South Africa use the .ac.za TLD...

<comment> tomh- Sometimes I'm getting pretty tired of apps/people who keep forgetting about non-us people, the internet is global, why put restrictions on it? Both my Dutch and Danish eduational mail addresses won't work obviously..but seems we can mail the owner to add or schools, at least that's something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> error: our sendmail is fubar. please e-mail email@example.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Site's not working on IE8 / Windows 7 64-bit - everything is completely skewed etc. I suspect it's related to this?

[http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/12/ie8-64-bit- windows-7-an...](http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/12/ie8-64-bit- windows-7-and-the-m.html)</comment>


The Lessons For Facebook, Twitter And Reddit In Digg's Demise - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/07/13/diggs-power-users-explain-the-lessons-from-its-downfall/

<comment><USER2> Best point of the article is that you need to keep in mind your 'leverage' as owner of a product when implementing large scale changes. In Digg's case, the community had all the leverage: they posted links to content, curated the content, provided the pageviews for advertisers, and spent the time making the site great. In return, Digg had little leverage at all to cause users to stay if they pissed them off sufficiently.

Facebook and Twitter have leverage: their content is user-generated, and cannot be found elsewhere, this combined with their social graphs make it so if you switched you will not be seeing content from a majority of the people you know or care about any longer. Marketplaces like eBay and Craigslist have enormous leverage: eBay can push out a feature that pisses off 100% of their sellers, but sellers go where the buyers are, and the buyers are on eBay. Google has leverage over its advertisers for the same reason, though it's hard to think of how Google has leverage over its main audience, which is a testament to their cautiousness when messing with the search engine (at least until recently!)

I think this aspect is lost when you have sites like TechCrunch telling product people to just forge ahead and break stuff. Break stuff, sure, but remember that when Facebook break things and users eventually come crawling back, its certainly not due to loyalty or warm-fuzzy feelings but due to leverage. Do you have that kind of leverage?

<comment><USER3> The question of leverage can be an extremely difficult question to answer honestly to oneself. that gets even harder when you have to show the press/investors that you're staying relevant and continuing to evolve. Innovation for the web tends to mean redesigns, which users hate. if you admit to yourself that users have all the leverage, then you're taking away the go- to tool to prove you're innovating. Most CEOs and product teams would rather justify they're like Facebook or Apple in their own special way and do a shiny new redesign.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My impression of Digg power users at the time was that many of them were participating in voting rings to promote each other's sites and a few were even making money pushing links to the home page. Not all of them of course, but the few that did were ruining it for everyone. So I question the conclusions that the article makes based on asking these power users.

I think that power users (the bad ones) were the root cause of Digg's demise as they pushed bad content to the home page and forced the company to impose more restrictions and limit communication (collaboration) channels.

On the other hand, Reddit reduced the potential reward for gaming the system by 1. dividing the community into smaller subreddits, 2. Allowing down votes, and 3. varying the time a link stays on the home page based on user feedback. They did many other things better as well, but these stand out as important differences that allowed reddit to control the spam problem better and keeping the communities interesting.

<comment> floody-berry All the top users on Digg aggressively dugg each others submissions, that is undeniable. What's more, because of the "I'll vote your shit up if you vote mine up" mentality, and the ability to easily follow users to see what they submit and vote on, they also acquired hoards of normal users who would do the same without reciprocity in hopes of joining the top ranks.

It would've been a fairly worthless currency if not for the blogspam networks like Gizmodo, Engadget, Tech Crunch, Mashable, Cracked, Life Hacker, etc. that sprung up to funnel Digg's firehose of users on to ad-laden pages.

While no system would be perfect, Digg's made it excessively easy to game (maliciously or otherwise) and the content of submissions soon became almost irrelevant compared to who was submitting it.

<comment><USER5> That sounds very eerily similar to J.K. Galbraith's description of trader collusion on the New York Stock Exchange in his classic _The Great Crash 1929_. In it he describes how traders would fix prices. The general public, though aware of this, still participated in the market -- there was no where else to invest, and there were some gains that could accrue to them as well.

In a sense, a stock exchange is also a sort of social network. Curious thought, that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some say you should have such a strong vision that listening to users stuck in the past is a mistake. Others say shame on you for not listening to users, how stupid. Apparently it's only OK to ignore users when it works out.</comment>