Applying the Free Software Criteria - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/applying-free-sw-criteria.html <comment><USER3> I don't get why it's ok in this context (if you agree with the inherent unethicality of nonfree software) to have compatibility and support for interoperability with nonfree software. It might not purposefully lead someone to a less free situation, but when you're speaking as absolutely as Stallman does, I don't see how you can condone actions that may prolong someone's lack of freedom. I'm genuinely confused by this - if there's anyone who could lay this out without dogma and hyperbole I'd be much obliged.

<comment><USER4> Stallman in fact is quite a centrist and a pragmatist. The problem is that the software freedom landscape is so incredibly shifted towards the non-free end of the spectrum that he appears to be a radical. We can easily conceive of a radical splinter group of the FSF, the SLF (software liberation front), advocating:

1\. Only the use of the AGPL license. No other license is considered free, because all other licenses can be used in some way to limit the freedom of users. As soon as a license more free than the AGPL comes along, only that will be the free license. (In contrast, the FSF promotes the Apache license, the LGPL, and similar, when it is strategic to the free software agenda.)

2\. Never interoperate with non-free software. To do so is to condone actions that may prolong someone's lack of freedom. The fact this may be necessary for their work or personal life is irrelevant. (In contrast, most GNU software runs on Windows, which Stallman probably sees as no different from it running on the proprietary Unices he wrote it on.)

3\. Do not allow the execution of non-free code, if your free program executes code. (In contrast, gNewSense or IceCat will execute any x86 or javascript you throw at them, even if it doesn't have licensing metadata that identifies it as free.)

The FSF and Stallman are in fact quite tolerant in an absolute sense compared to our hypothetical SLF. This doesn't even go into the other strategies or tactics such an extreme group could engage in, such as firebombing the Microsoft offices or forcibly liberating source code. Instead, the FSF restricts itself to very tame boycott politics.

You in particular have a gross misunderstanding of Stallman's strategies and tactics, even if you might understand his goals. Stallman is a moderate. He thinks pragmatically, even if he's sometimes wrong (protesting DRM at apple stores is probably a waste, as is protesting furriers, but sometimes you can't help but want to speak out).

<comment><USER5> So your argument is: Stallman is a moderate when compared to a hypothetical software terrorist?

In the real world, Stallman is still a radical. The English meaning of the word freedom cannot be twisted for suiting one's philosophy. True freedom lies in allowing your work to be modified without restrictions - like the BSD or Apache licenses offer. Daemonizing software released under those licenses, and proselytizing against their use IS radical.

<comment> vezzy-fnord The FSF does not demonize nor proselytize against the BSD licenses. They are free software licenses and thus FSF-approved.

<comment><USER5> FSF's most vocal proponent has gone on record with his opinion on the BSD/Apache licensed software.

[http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms- obj...](http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-objects-to- support-for-llvms-debugger-in-gnu-emacss-gudel)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think this is a realistic request on the modern web - <USER2> when it comes to JavaScript code, even if it's a technically accurate interpretation of how JS is transmitted and executed. (Licensing is an interesting thing to think about here.)

But hey, for what it's worth, every piece of JavaScript we run is free software compatible. Hooray! [https://github.com/idno/known](https://github.com/idno/known)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm a huge user, believer and propagater of QUALITY free software, or quality anything.

It's preposterous to suggest that non-free programs limit individual freedom and liberty. Quid-pro-quo: the undeniable biological, evolutionary instinct to receive something (money) for a rendered service/product (software) simply cannot be deemed criminal. There's very little incentive to charge money for something whose blueprint is free. RedHat is the exception in the software world, not the rule. Very few profitable free-software based companies thrive - take canonical for instance, they're barely profitable despite putting out a VERY high quality Linux distro

Plus, why stop at software - why not release the blueprints of EVERYTHING ever made? Oh - and please tell your ambitious school going kid to NOT aim to finish first, because, when he grows up to be a successful inventor, Stallman and co. would have brainwashed the masses into daemonizing inventions that aren't made public property!

<comment><USER7> >Quid-pro-quo: the undeniable biological, evolutionary instinct to receive something (money) for a rendered service/product (software) simply cannot be deemed criminal.

FSF/Stallman in way claims that charging for software is criminal or even unethical.

The whole point of Free Software is to give and preserve rights for end users, rights which enable end users to do what they want with the software they recieve, like examining it to make sure it doesn't do anything bad (for the user), modifying it to do what the end user wants, copy it, etc.

Now obviously this makes it incompatible with the traditional way of commercial software, which is proprietary distribution of binaries, which often also comes with DRM schemes further limiting what the end user can do with said software, and worst case, exploiting the end user by enganging in hidden or poorly-disclosed unwanted actions (spyware, rootkits etc).

<comment><USER5> I don't understand this - every product & service sold in the open market - from baby formula to clothing, from a meal at a restaurant to a flight - relies on competitive advantage that's proprietary to the seller.

A mindset to open this advantage up is somehow being selectively applied to software.

In a truly open and free market, malicious elements that include spyware, rootkits .. etc will get rooted out. Additionally, regulation from the justice department and FTC tries to maintain the free-ness of the market, so that one company doesn't abuse its position.

In this light, the GPL is simply not compatible with the tenets of economics - which by the way is how evolution and biology has programmed all of us.

BSD/Apache/MIT kind of permissive licenses offer true freedom. They allow for jointly harnessing the resources of many to build infrastructure that has widespread use - an approach that allows companies to focus on their value-add rather than re-inventing the wheel.

Stallman is a vocal detractor [1] of ANY permissive open-source license. This is unfortunate for someone who actually played a pivotal role in the big success that open-source is today.

[1]: [http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms- obj...](http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-objects-to- support-for-llvms-debugger-in-gnu-emacss-gudel)

<comment><USER7> >I don't understand this - every product & service sold in the open market - from baby formula to clothing, from a meal at a restaurant to a flight - relies on competitive advantage that's proprietary to the seller.

I disagree, what products and services typically rely on is price which in turn is typically based on just how well a company can exploit workers and negotiate cheap prices for material, and of course advertising to make people buy their particular version out in a sea of thousands of practically identical products.

>A mindset to open this advantage up is somehow being selectively applied to software.

Because the FSF is concerned about software, due to it's founder being a developer. I'm sure there are efforts to have better dislosure of contents, preparation and materials used for the type of physical products you brought up.

>In a truly open and free market, malicious elements that include spyware, rootkits .. etc will get rooted out.

I find that incredibly naive, pretty much every company wants to exploit their customers for maximum return, Microsoft recently turned their OS into the equivalent of spyware in order to harvest user data for ad targeting, meanwhile the governments are actively making use of malicious elements to compromise as many end users they can in order to surveil them.

>which by the way is how evolution and biology has programmed all of us.

What? Are you saying we are actually programmed to hide our discoveries in order to be able to take advantage of our fellow man rather than share our knowledge in order to advance ourselves as a species ?

>BSD/Apache/MIT kind of permissive licenses offer true freedom.

For the developer, Free Software offers 'true freedom' for the end user. Ah, the old 'true freedom' nonsense.

>an approach that allows companies to focus on their value-add rather than re- inventing the wheel.

Meanwhile everyone needs to re-invent the value-add functionality, so you are still re-inventing the wheel.

It ends up saving proprietary companies money because they can lower the amount of developers they need, since they don't need to write as much code, only the 'value-add', this leads to less developer employment.

If anything you should be disliking permissive code rather than copyleft, since it is the former which really threathens developer jobs in the proprietary software sector which you seemingly fear for.

>Stallman is a vocal detractor [1] of ANY permissive open-source license.

Well obviously since they do not protect any of the end user rights which Free Software was created to protect. Again Free Software is about giving rights to the end user, not the developer.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learning Python - day two. - <AUTHOR> http://sahillavingia.com/blog/2010/10/17/learning-python-day-two/

<comment><USER2> Interesting! I really like reading about the practical application of learning something (if you make money from this, that would be awesome!), rather than just someone learning it to learn it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Really want to see where you can take it!

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice idea. Can you also talk in more detail about how you integrated the Thesaurus API into GAE?</comment>


Personal Analytics for Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2013/01/23/introducing-expanded-personal-analytics-for-facebook/

<comment><USER2> If you can edit the title, it'd be better as "Wolfram Alpha updates their Personal Analytics for Facebook" or something since it is indeed an update and not totally new.

<comment><USER3> Agreed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately I don't think I can.

<comment><USER3> No worries, thanks for posting it so quickly!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks like fun. I'm totally cool with them having my data. Just give me pretty graphs. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there any plans on setting it up so you only do analysis for a certain time frame? Who are my top comments in the past year vs all time?

<comment><USER3> Yes! We call it Historical Analytics. We're waiting till the next release to enable the visualizations, but you can start collecting data now by enabling it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does it save all my fb info on Wolfram Alpha's server or run the analysis every time ?

<comment><USER2> I feel like this is a question I ask myself with every FB app I "connect" with. You never really know what they're actually doing with your data unless you read all their policies and that's just what they _say_ they're going to do.

<comment><USER6> Well, I gave it a try with a temp id. The analytics is impressive. But, I am pretty concerned abt privacy despite their claim of not storing any personally identifiable info.

<comment><USER7> You are worried about privacy yet use FB?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It used to be that, in order to get access to someone's rolodex, you'd have to befriend them and do a ton of things with them to maintain that said friendship. And even then, you still had to go through them to take advantage of that rolodex of connections, where they would keep rough tabs on who you were and how often you took advantage of these connections, so that they could come back to you when they need to take advantage of your connections in turn.

Looks like these days, someone like Wolfram can get full access for the price of a few cute graphs.

At least, the data that the egomaniacal Wolfram gets his hands on is limited to those people who are easily fooled by shiny gifs.

<comment><USER3> Unless you enable Historical Analytics, we delete your data after one hour.

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/fbfaqs.html>

"I'm concerned about the privacy of my account information. What is done with my Facebook data?

We value the trust that our users put in us, and are committed to maintaining the highest standards of privacy protection.

In order to do analysis on your Facebook data, it is necessary to cache it temporarily on our servers. We acquire the data through the Wolfram Connection app using the Facebook API, respecting whatever privacy settings you and your friends have given to Facebook. Our system is set up to cache your data on our servers for one hour, which allows you to perform queries efficiently. The default behavior is to delete personally identifiable data after one hour."

<comment><USER8> Great, then you can respond to some observations and answer some questions:

1\. Your FAQ is at odds with your privacy policy (<http://www.wolframalpha.com/privacypolicy.html>) which states that you can collect and retain Personally Identifying Information. How do you explain the discrepancy?

2\. In a conflict between a "FAQ" and Privacy Policy, which one is the officially binding document? Why should I entrust my data to comments made by a pseudonymous user or to something that is called a FAQ?

3\. Your privacy policy is subject to change without notice. How can I be assured of any guarantee given that you have this blanket clause? Why would you not offer your users to opt out of any changes that weaken their privacy?

Please back up your responses with URLs to legally binding documents that provide strong guarantees we can rely on.

Thanks.

<comment><USER3> I'd be delighted to answer your questions:

1\. I don't believe that the two documents are in conflict. Our privacy policy states:

"When you use any Wolfram|Alpha application associated with a Third-Party Site ("TPS"), including but not limited to social networking sites such as Facebook, we may collect personally identifiable information about you from the profile you have established at the TPS."

When you use Wolfram|Alpha Personal Analytics for Facebook, we do access your Facebook data, which you have to authorize through Facebook. That data does contain personally identifiable information. That isn't in conflict with the FAQ. The FAQ states (apologies if this is repetitive):

"In order to do analysis on your Facebook data, it is necessary to cache it temporarily on our servers. We acquire the data through the Wolfram Connection app using the Facebook API, respecting whatever privacy settings you and your friends have given to Facebook. Our system is set up to cache your data on our servers for one hour, which allows you to perform queries efficiently. The default behavior is to delete personally identifiable data after one hour."

We do collect personally identifiable data from Facebook, but we don't save this data for more than an hour (unless you specifically enable Historical Analytics which tracks changes to your Facebook over time).

2\. There shouldn't be any conflict between the FAQ and the Privacy Policy, the FAQ is specific to Wolfram|Alpha Personal Analytics for Facebook whereas the Privacy Policy is global to all of Wolfram|Alpha. As far as my being pseudonymous, my name is John Burnham and the above link is to my blog post. Send me an email at email@example.com if you like.

3\. & 4\. Yes, the privacy policy is subject to change, which is standard for many TOS's. I'd like to point out though, that our Privacy Policy also states at the bottom of the page that we haven't changed it since March 2009. If we do change it, you can refresh the page at any time and check the bottom of the page for the date of previous change. What's currently on the web is the current legal document.

Links: FAQ <http://www.wolframalpha.com/fbfaqs.html> Privacy Policy <http://www.wolframalpha.com/privacypolicy.html>

<comment><USER8> These is non-responsive PR:

1\. The PP explicitly says that Wolfram can collect and retain data indefinitely. The FAQ promises a horizon of 1 hour. 1 != ∞. Which of these documents is to be believed? Which of them constitutes a legally binding document?

2\. I don't want reassurance from some Joe Random Shmoe. Your users have a relationship with Wolfram LLC (or whatever the legal entity is). So any meaningful guarantee needs to come from that entity. But until now, Wolfram has only provided weasel wording and cagey language. I appreciate you sharing your name, but then again you have a product to peddle, and we both know that nothing you say here is legally binding for Wolfram, so you could say anything.

3 & 4\. PP provides no meaningful long-term guarantee. Saying that this is standard for many in the industry is a cop out. If your company is really committed to these principles of privacy you espouse and claim here in this forum, it certainly has the legal staff to get it written into those two documents to which you linked.

Time to get your principles in your legal documents. It's duplicitous to claim the high road while peddling agreements that sign away so much PII to Wolfram.

<comment><USER9> 1\. Two different meanings of data: connecting your Facebook account to your Wolfram ID, which is necessary to do the analytics, is by definition PPI (your Facebook account IS your name and email address). That's why the privacy policy says that.

However, the actual data retrieved from your Facebook profile (wallposts, friend lists, etc) is deleted after 1 hour -- unless you enable Historical Analytics, obviously.

There is no contradiction here.

2\. This question is phrased in such an insulting way I can't imagine you aren't deliberately trolling.

3&4\. We've been quite upfront about what we do with your data. All your Facebook data goes away unless you opt in to Historical Analytics. Otherwise there is no PII derived from your Facebook data that we keep. You can disable Historical Analytics at any time, and you can disassociate your Facebook account from your Wolfram ID at any time, too.

To sum up: we've taken the high road from the beginning. Unlike many FB-based businesses, users aren't the product here, they're the customers.

Have a nice day.

<comment><USER8> Yes, we all follow what _you_ have said, but I see no guarantees offered by Wolfram, the service provider. You can pretend to be offended and avoid the question, but at the end of the day, the assurance you are trying to provide here is not legally binding and you know it. If you really believe in your last paragraph, why don't you have the Wolfram legal staff put these guarantees in writing, into the ToS and Privacy Policy?

At $600/hour for a lawyer and 30 minutes of their time to add a sentence or two, it'll cost $300 to make the changes. That's well under however much your time cost to make unbacked assurances online. And at the end of the day, your service and your users will be better off for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Happy Birthday - 5 Years of Docker at Overleaf - <AUTHOR> https://www.overleaf.com/blog/637-happy-birthday-5-years-of-docker-at-overleaf <comment><USER2> Meh. Who cares? The use of a new technology for five years is not a birthday nor an occasion for a self-congratulatory blog post.</comment>


Apple Should Buy Hollywood  - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/26/apple-100-billion-buy-hollywood/ <comment><USER2> If Apple buying Hollywood means I can look forward to more interaction with iTunes, then no thanks.

The last thing we need Hollywood to turn into is an even more walled garden. The best answer for Hollywood is an open approach from end to end, from funding to distribution to better bandwidth.

Fund independent movies and television shows. Continuously. Encourage the death of dvd and bluray. Encourage the death of all hard copies of media, even thumb drives. Give NetFlix and Hulu more money. Lobby the FCC to regulate broadband speeds. Everyone should have 10+Mbps by now. These are the right steps towards defeating Hollywood.

<comment><USER3> >Encourage the death of all hard copies of media, even thumb drives

This is a pipe dream that doesn't think more than 5 years into the future or understand the realities of distribution.

The properties inherent to physical media are some of the most consumer friendly aspects of distribution. Some can be approximated with a software- only approach, provided that the content provider wants to not only take the time to implement, but also wants consumers to continue to have those benefits. There are also properties of physical media that are impossible to duplicate with the internet, and what they do provide relies on them never going offline and never stop serving any each and every piece of content.

I have NES cartridges in my closet that are much more versatile than games on steam. I have a netflix streaming account that I _can not_ use when I visit my father because he doesn't have an internet connection and I can't cache netflix movies on my laptop. I have a friend, who because of hardware failure, can only use xbox dlc if he is connected to the internet (I don't really know the DRM specifics, but on the original hardware he didn't need to be connected).

I put up with some of these limitations because I hope they are temporary and digital distribution companies will eventually get their act together, but they're still a "last resort" option when I buy media.

<comment><USER4> _> The properties inherent to physical media are some of the most consumer friendly aspects of distribution._

I don't think so. What's consumer friendly about plastic garbage that takes up space, is ridden with unskipable ads, DRM to boot, and is a pain to handle?

The true "problem" (for those relying on this business model) still remains the reality that you ultimately cannot force people to pay for virtually cost- free distribution of content. You cannot stop free sharing either. All efforts to do so will eventually result in heavy censorship (actually, copyright and free speech are fundamentally at odds).

Pretty much all problems with digital media you describe are caused by this failure to accept reality on the side of distributors. It's not a problem with digital media, it's a problem created by trying to make digital media like physical media (-> being able to control distribution), when the former is so much more powerful, versatile and plain better than the latter. Distributions as a business model is _dead_. The future of digital media is one that doesn't rely on it, and embraces cost-free distribution and free sharing.

<comment><USER5> What's consumer friendly about physical media is simplicity & independence. My 2-year-old can climb onto the bookshelf, dig out whatever disc he wants, open the Bluray player, insert disc, close it, and watch it - THAT is "consumer friendly". Sure there are things to complain about with discs, but those are way into the "first world problems" realm.

When you buy a disc, it's yours. No remote server can deny you access to it on a whim.

There was an old saw "don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon stuffed with magnetic tapes." Until we get consistent >25Mb/s streaming cheap, you're not going to see Bluray-quality video from Netflix et al ... but a 2-year-old can deliver it in seconds.

<comment><USER4> If you're seriously basing consumer-friendliness on the ability of a two-year old to operate it, then I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your idea of consumer-friendly.

Also, if you can teach a 2-year-old to put a disc into a player, you can most likely teach him to click on (or touch) an icon in a digital media library. There's no difference. None at all.

 _> When you buy a disc, it's yours. No remote server can deny you access to it on a whim._

Again, that is not a problem with digital media, that's a problem of people trying to control digital distribution, which is impossible. I have loads of nice .mkv (and some older .avi and .mp4) files here, in addition to a huge music library, and short of a double harddrive fault, _nothing_ can deny me access to them.

Many physicals disks have copy-protection schemes, too, by the way. What if the industry for disk players decides to not make any players anymore that can play disks with a certain copy-protection scheme. Or switch to a new format of storing media, as they did quite a lot of time in the past. It's the very same thing as a "remote server denying you access". There's no guarantee you'll be able to play these disks you own in 5, 10 or 20 years. I have that guarantee, because short of the complete replacement of the general purpose computer, I will be able to play my aforementioned media collection.

 _> There was an old saw "don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon stuffed with magnetic tapes." Until we get consistent >25Mb/s streaming cheap, you're not going to see Bluray-quality video from Netflix et al ... but a 2-year-old can deliver it in seconds._

Netflix (and other streaming services) are as much part of the problem as physical media are. Streaming is DRM, no matter how you turn or twist it. You pay per watch, and you don't own what you watch. And again, I'm not paying for something that's cost-free to begin with (distribution). Distribution-based business models are dead, and trying to save them will only lead towards more shit like SOPA, ACTA and the DMCA, which hurt the internet and Free Speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No.

Apple (and Google, and Netflix and anyone else..) should campaign to have statutory music licensing[1] extended to video/film.

That originally came about when the music industry couldn't agree to reasonable licensing terms for radio, so the government intervened to impose a licensing regime that allowed the new industry to build audiences while still making a return for artists.

Sound familiar?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States)

</comment><comment><USER7> This makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry.

What upside is there for Apple in owning the expensive, unwieldy, production- side apparatus of Hollywood? Why should Apple be devoting resources, human and economic, to developing content when its hardware and software businesses are so much more profitable?

All this talk in recent weeks about "destroying Hollywood," and now, "buying Hollywood," focuses too much on Hollywood as it currently exists. If we're so confident that Hollywood-of-today is a ripe for disruption, then let's focus on _disrupting_ it. The way to do that isn't to fight Hollywood on its own terms. It's to make the creation, distribution, and marketing of non-Hollywood films and shows easier for those outside of Hollywood to do. You don't kill Hollywood with a management change. You kill Hollywood by building -- or, really, supporting the growth of -- an alternative to Hollywood.

Apple already has the means to do this. Its software makes filmmaking and editing cheap, easy, clean, and powerful. And, at least in theory, there's nothing stopping Apple from placing independent films right alongside mainstream Hollywood films on the iTunes movie page. Or serving them up through Genius-powered collaborative filtering algorithms. Etc.

Apple already _owns_ the future of Hollywood in a very meaningful way. To suggest that Apple needs to "buy" anymore of Hollywood is to miss the forest for the trees.

<comment><USER8> Well, that's what you might guess from the title and from the first half of the article where he posits that Apple _could_ buy Hollywood if it wanted to.

But then he goes on to say that what they _should_ do is to buy a bunch of distribution rights so that they can offer true a la carte TV programming.

<comment><USER7> Where strategic acquisition of distribution _would_ make some sense is as a competitive advantage over Amazon and Netflix (and over any similar competitors who might emerge). But to secure exclusive rights on key pieces of content, Apple would need to pay an exhorbitant amount of cash -- essentially, protection money to Hollywood to keep content out of competitive hands.

This also forces Apple into the game of picking hits, by betting on which pieces of content are going to be worth buying exclusive rights for. Hit- picking is a notoriously tricky business. (Even Hollywood gets it right only about 10% of the time).

Strategic, overall partnerships with key content providers -- HBO, for instance -- might make a great deal of sense. But to do so would be to place Apple's fate in the hands of HBO's development arm, i.e., to bet that HBO will keep turning out hits at the rate it currently is.

Perhaps a hybrid approach here is best: prime the pump with some exclusive, big-studio content, but over time, focus on developing a content ecosystem that is attractive to content developers the way the App Store is to software developers. Hollywood is a very pricey middle-man for content development; the long-term goal should be to build up the independent development system. If nothing else, this forces Hollywood's costs down by introducing legitimate competition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems to me that Apple has already locked down a distribution and promotion model that is significantly less expensive than Hollywood. The only thing left is to replace Hollywood's role as "VC for TV/music/movie ideas".

I would imagine with their huge cost advantages, Apple could offer much more attractive deals to the creative people in the industries. Why not just start funding productions?

Hell, content is just Apple's carrot to get people to buy hardware. They don't even need to make a profit from it.

</comment><comment><USER10> _Imagine any show or movie on demand on your TV, way beyond what is available in iTunes now. There is no program guide, no schedule. Everything is there, organized according to your taste..._

This is what I want. Despite paying for Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, and being willing to pay for other such services I still can't get it. I have the Plex client installed on my Google TV, streaming shows that I torrent (even when they are on Hulu) and I rip Netflix movies. Not because I'm cheap and won't pay -- I would if they sold all this to me.

I can watch any content, on any device, anywhere but only because I'm a thief.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm starting to wonder if all these SV guys talking about fixing Hollywood is kind of like Hollywood saying they're going to fix SV (or revolutionize it with a poorly conceived product, poorly conceived because they have no domain experience there). Hubris?

I tend to agree there's likely a better model, but I suspect there's a bit more to it than the tech industry seems to think. Something to consider.

</comment><comment><USER12> as the article says, the concept of actually buying hollywood is a little ridiculous and a little pointless, but they don't need to.

putting up billions to license first-run shows is a terrible idea though. it validates all hollywood's reluctance to change any of their old business practices, and encourages then to keep being stick-in-the-muds. Hollywood needs to be disrupted, and a huge pile of cash is exactly what is needed for that to happen. If apple wants access to high-quality content for their TVs, they need to do something drastically different to scare hollywood into playing with them.

</comment><comment><USER13> What they should really do is distribute some of those billions to their employees, and set a precedent for fair/social capitalism. Because yeah Steve Jobs was a genius, but any engineer who uses their devices knows that the folks who _executed_ his ideas were just as critical for Apple's success.

</comment><comment><USER14> Apple has tremendous proven ability to create/ride new markets, but no demonstrated ability to rescue doomed businesses with (soon-to-be-)failed business models. Why should they start now? Sure, that's only a backwards- looking argument against Apple buying Hollywood, but the burden is on those arguing in favor to explain why this makes sense for Apple. Seems like it'd be better for Apple to just milk the distributors while they can and at the same time make it easy for the next generation of content to be distributed via Apple... which is exactly what they're doing with iTunes.

Hm, what are some new business models (or more generally, pivots) that would make the dying distributors continue to be relevant?

<comment><USER15> > _Apple has ... no demonstrated ability to rescue doomed businesses_

Uh... Really?

<comment><USER14> The rest of the quote is relevant too: "no demonstrated ability to rescue doomed businesses with (soon-to-be-)failed business models".

If you're referring to Macs, the Macintosh line is more like a luxury clothing brand than a horse-drawn buggy manufacturer. Macs sell because they're _commodities_ that have been dressed up with a luxury veneer[1], like a boutique clothing brand or "luxury"-class car. The perceived (and monetary) value of "luxury" commodities comes from the cachet of owning it more than any increase in value from better quality. Sure, luxury goods do usually have better craftsmanship too, but the high profit margins of luxury brands is pretty good evidence that consumers are paying for more than just the increase in quality.

There isn't really any analogue to luxury commodities in the media distribution space. The closest I can think of is HBO, and that's a pretty good model of the future: it's a service you subscribe to if you want it, and it's delivered over a generic pipe. More pure HBO-like entities are the future, except without the artifacts of having to be shoehorned into a cable and satellite distribution system.

1\. Some would argue that they're also better from a functional perspective too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> how about completely ignoring Hollywood and instead, focus on creating a better production/marketing/distribution chain for film makers?

</comment><comment><USER17> Apple is where it is because they see "where the puck is going" and high risk, blockbuster-driven Hollywood is not that. If anything, they should be looking to the far more complementary game industry. Exclusive games would translate directly into iPhone and iPad sales (ie their main profit centers!) in a way that's hard to imagine with movies. An acquisition or exclusivity deal with the increasingly desperate Nintendo would be money well spent.

I'll be surprised if there aren't a round of game company acquisitions to this effect in the next few years for exactly this purpose, as blue chip game makers struggle to compete with increasingly rich $3 smartphone apps, and as games are the main beneficiary of increasing smartphone power. Microsoft understands the value of a well timed acquisition (buying Bungie basically made the XBox an instant success), so I wouldn't be surprise if they initiate.

<comment><USER4> _> An acquisition or exclusivity deal with the increasingly desperate Nintendo would be money well spent._

Please elaborate, in what way is Nintendo "desperate"? I'm not really following the console market anymore, but last I checked was Nintendo being the only of the big three console manufactures pushing innovative new concepts and making a killing with the Wii and DS. I know they are worrying about the mobile market, but is that really true competition for them right now?

<comment><USER18> Google their recent financial report. It says something like "revenue down 30%, net loss half a billion $".

I would not call it desperate, but they likely are more than a bit worried.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I honestly can't think of anything worse for consumers.

By purchasing the content producers they would own the entire supply chain (from production to delivery), purchasing (nearly) every content producer would make them a monopoly both horizontally (owning every player in a single stage of the supply chain) and vertically (having interests at each stage of the supply chain).

I doubt (I'd hope at least) the US government would ever allow this to happen due to anti-competition laws. Honestly I'd be surprised if they weren't already investigating Apple over their current music/movie (and future book) distribution businesses.

I'm pretty disappointed that Erick (the author) could think this would ever be good for consumers.

The big problem with both the music and movie industry, from a consumer perspective, is that they operate a lot like a cartel. They should be competing with each other, not their customers.

</comment><comment><USER20> Louis CK has shown one way to bypass hollywood. If more artists replicate the CK model; if there are more online distributors that can reach any device (youtube, netflix); and if there are angels, VCs and more crowdfunding platforms for content creators, we can move closer to killing hollywood. What this does validate is that content is king. It needs better/alternate funding and distribution systems.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sony made this same mistake in the 80's by buying a movie studio. I can't see Apple going down this road of diversification through acquisition.

Then again, Sony's terrible product divisions are propped up by their massive sales in life insurance and the company wouldn't exist without it:

<http://www.splatf.com/2011/11/sony-profits/>

</comment><comment><USER22> I wish Silicon Valley knew who they were talking about before coming up with this "kill hollywood" nonsense. As if Hollywood is 7 guys with rich parents sitting around waiting to be bought.

Hollywood BOUGHT congress, I doubt Apple or MS can buy Hollywood. I really need to write a piece on this.

<comment><USER23> Remarkably, Hollywood bought Congress while being a remarkably small part of the economy, both in terms of revenue (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue>) and jobs (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_employees>). These are global lists, but you'll notice that not even Disney makes either one. As an economic matter, why should Congress be more responsive to Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom than to, say, Kroger, which has more employees and revenue than the others combined? The MPAA is visible far more than it is important.

As far as being for sale, publicly owned companies are always for sale.

<comment><USER22> Hollywood does not report profits on many of their films.

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

[http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/08/hollywood-applies- cre...](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/08/hollywood-applies-creative- accounting-to-harry-potter-movie/)

Google around and you'll find tons of articles on famous successful films that "never turned a profit".

Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings do this as well. They use VERY creative accounting to mark up overhead costs and hide profits.

<comment><USER23> Look at revenue, not profit. The economy doesn't care how much the company profits, it cares how much the company is spending (on employees and other services).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Apple doesn't have $100B, or even $90B, that it can use to buy Hollywood, pay dividends, give more money to employees, etc.

A huge fraction of Apple's cash is outside the US. Bringing that money into the US would require paying 35% (US corporate tax rate).

</comment><comment><USER25> Why buy the cow...

</comment><comment><USER26> They say they have 96 billion in cash, yet their financial statements only list 54 billion. Where is the rest? Is it in a subsidiary? If so, aren't there also liabilities in the subsidiary? I don't get it.

<comment><USER27> I assume you are looking at the 'Total current assets' in the balance sheet of their latest 10Q [1]. Instead, add together 'Cash and cash equivalents', 'Short-term marketable securities' and 'Long-term marketable securities' to get $97,601 million.

[1] [http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1659381773x0x536...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1659381773x0x536523/381559d7-04a1-40d5-8e2a-236e3f867158/AAPL%20Q1FY12%2010Q%2001.25.12.pdf)

<comment><USER26> Hey, thanks millions.

Interestingly, the third google result for 'Long-term marketable securities' is the following. Do you personally agree with adding this to cash?

[http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-08...](http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-08-09-apple- cash_n.htm)

<comment><USER27> I expect that the marketable securities owned Apple are highly liquid, so yeah I'm happy to call it 'cash'.

<comment><USER26> From reading a bit more about it, I agree. It's not quite 'cash', but it's not the worst nickname for liquid assets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nah. Apple should turbocharge education.

<comment><USER29> Apple should stay out of education.

The last thing education needs is lock in (content and application walled gardens) and a high entry cost (expensive hardware requirements).

Education should be free and open.

<comment><USER28> Education is not free and it certainly isn't open. You pay for it with your taxes; the government decides what goes in the books and curriculum and unions don't let us create a competitive marketplace where bad teachers evaporate from the radar and truly good teachers compete and make two or three times the money they make today while providing a better education. Much like anything that government touches, the system is a mess and our competitors are eating us alive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is this the one who replaced Arrington as chief-editor of Techcrunch? Duh!

</comment><comment><USER31> Then we can look forward to patent lawsuits over aspect ratios.

No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER32> Please god no.

Apple is great and all but there seems to be almost a call from some people that the world would be best run by an international dictatorship with the half eaten fruit as it's flag.

</comment><comment><USER33> Apple should buy a telco?

</comment><comment><USER34> One wall garden to buy another walled garden? Whats the point? We need to disrupt the movie, tv and music business. We need to tear down the wall.

<comment><USER35> Apple's music business is in no way a walled garden.

<comment><USER29> The store front for it is however.

<comment><USER35> Are you serious?! Really?!

That's not what a walled garden is. You can walk out at any time and keep everything you bought. There is nothing forcing you to stay there. Getting in is a bit harder than opening a web browser – but that's getting in, not getting out. It doesn't matter. It's not like you have a right to buy something there.

<comment><USER29> No you can't just walk away. You need to authorise a machine to play DRM infected media from iTunes and you cannot play DRM infected media on devices which do not support FairPlay.

I am referring to music purchased pre-2009 (which is a large volume of sales), current movies, books, and television shows.

I don't have a right to purchase but the majority have a reasonable expectation to be able to take their purchases away in the future in the same manor as they expect their purchased DVDs to be usable on every DVD vendor's equipment.

<comment><USER35> This is getting more idiotic every time. Are you for real?

First, I was explicitly talking about music. Second, DRM is no more. That's it. The music store was a walled garden. It is no more. To call it a walled garden is stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "One thing they could do is buy their way into Hollywood. Think about it for a second."

If only the author did, then maybe he wouldn't have written this post.

Why would anyone want to buy an industry in self-imposed decline when they can sit on their hands, wait for them to wither, then push them around with whatever terms they like.

People need to stop reading TechCrunch.

</comment><comment><USER37> I've always taken "kill Hollywood" as a call to reinvent entertainment and come up with fresh alternatives to the current garbage.

And oldstrangers nailed it with his iTunes comment. Ugh. Can't stand that software.

</comment><comment><USER38> Apple should fix the iphone-4S battery problem.</comment>


Ask HN: Selling a software start-up - <AUTHOR> As advised on Proggit, I'm posting my question here.
I'm considering a selling a small software company in order to be able to concentrate on other ventures. Currently, it's taking up all my time and I've got some other ideas that I want to work on. The company has been profitable since day one (it's been around for almost 1 year) and yearly revenue is the upper 5 figure range (the only real cost is a VPS).
I'm still not decided whether I want to go ahead with it but if I do, how would I go about finding a buyer?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> You have two options you can follow:

1) your company is profitable, it may interest pretty much any independent person to pick it up, grow it a little bit and see what they can do with it. Sales price would be 1X-2X annual profits

2) your product has a strong synergy with a bigger company's products. You can target a strategic sale to them.

Approach #2 will yield a higher price, but could take you 6 months or more to close a deal. Approach 1 will not be as lucrative, but probably can be done quickly.

All of this assumes your financials are clean, there are no hidden costs or liabilities.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=164512>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=200531>

</comment><comment><USER4> Well one of your biggest audiences might well be here or even Proggit (not sure of their TOC's for things like that).</comment>


The Wild Ride Of The Top 1% - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402.html

<comment><USER2> The simplest explanation for the volatility is that brutal tax rates prior to the Reagan tax cuts led the wealthy to keep their money safe and to try not to realize too much income in any given year -- and if possible, hide their income entirely so that they didn't have to pay taxes.

Slashing the tax rates made it more practical to just go ahead and realize any income you can get. Since earning an anomalously high income is -- obviously -- itself anomalous, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the highest incomes were due to one-shot gains, whether from cashing in on options in a company after an IPO or a vesting, making a huge trade in the market that pans out impossibly well, or simply making the deal of a lifetime in a business arrangement.

Any disagreements? Other possible explanations? This is pretty interesting macroeconomic data, so I'd love to hear more thoughts.

<comment><USER3> A major portion was an IRS rule change which made it less tax efficient to do conspicuous consumption on the company dime. Japan has a treatment closer to the old way, and Japanese CEOs have wages which are not too dissimilar to American engineers but lifestyles which are similar to American CEOs. (e.g. Want a private flight to a vacation in Europe? That can be arranged, sir.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Which do you think happened first? Firing half of his work force, or deciding to finally put his house on the market. That's a pretty important distinction. In time of stress, who gets sacrificed first? Your employees or your luxuries?

Also --- _"from the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York to the tax battles in Washington, portrayals of millionaires and billionaires are being shaped more by partisan ideologies than economic realities"_ \--- really? Thousands of people in LA lining up to receive free health care because they are insured is "partisan ideologies"?

What is "economic realities" then? The price of a Gulfstream?

</comment><comment><USER5> I was browsing through real estate in SF the other day and saw a few mansions. I like clicking through the pictures and seeing what that kind of lifestyle would look like. At a price tag at 20mil and amazing views you'd think you'd be happy there but then I looked up the monthly payments for a 30 year loan and they would be 80,000 month. I was shocked and baffled at how someone could be ok spending that much money a month on a house. Who can afford this? You think of the common stereotypes but really who could do this. Someone list some names and what they did beside the mainstream people.

</comment><comment><USER6> This sort of article is why serious people tend to roll their eyes when the Wall Street Journal comes up. Their agenda -- to humanize and sympathize with the 1% -- could not be more obvious. Why should I feel bad for someone who describes losing their $100m house as heartbreaking?

<comment><USER7> You must have read a different article. The article I read went to great pains to point out the staggering extravagance of many wealthy people in the U.S.

EDIT: I mean "Versailles"? Seriously? Like just building the largest residence in the U.S. wasn't ostentatious enough by itself?

<comment><USER6> I suppose it's dependent on how you read the article. I assumed that we were supposed to be sympathizing with these people -- although we both realized how ridiculous that would be.

<comment><USER2> I started off sick at my stomach at the same thing you were complaining about -- the sad story of this unfortunate woman losing her 90,000 square foot house. But it became pretty clear that while they weren't mocking her to her face (which would be mean no matter who she was), they definitely weren't expecting everyone to sympathize with the plight of the extremely wealthy.

They make this point most clearly here:

> Of course, the trauma of giving up a Gulfstream or a yacht can't compare > with the millions of Americans who have lost their only job or home. The > Siegels will make do in their current 26,000-square-foot mansion.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: what do you think of my chat app? - <AUTHOR>

http://270rule.appspot.com/ is anonymous live chat for any page, plus a feed of who is chatting where. no login, bbcode, and some embedding are supported. let me know what you think! thank you hn!!!! <comment><USER2> It's pretty cool. I'm using it on this page right now.

Your home site needs a little work. The links sometimes collide with the text.

It also would be good to add some kind of description on the home page. Even just putting "Anonymous Chat for Any Page" right below the big "270rule" would be a step up.

Also, it would be nice if it would highlight what I've posted (even if it's only temporary, going away after a refresh) so that I can quickly see which messages are "new" (as in came later than the last thing I've said).

Also, I did eventually find the close link on my own, but it's not at all obvious. You can put "270 rule" somewhere else, but you really want to tell people that that link closes it.

And if you can find a way not to allow people to open it several times on the same page (Try clicking the bookmarklet several times and see what happens.) that would be cool.

</comment><comment><USER3> Done: <http://www.yaplet.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> nice way she handles a lot of things there. i like the way usernames on the chat are handled. interesting use of frames too

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I tried out the Hot right now link, should this show active yaplet chats across the web? I can't see myself checking pages to see if they have open chats (I'm sure the plan is to use a link rather than check each page) Maybe a browser plugin could alert me if other yaplet users are chatting or visiting pages I am browsing?

</comment><comment><USER5> Whatever happened to circle of chat/conversation (I forget the exact name :-(

That was a nice one. This one sounds cool too, I'll check it out later.

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks like you're having issues w/ the quotas already.

I just got a 403 Over Quota. Refresh fixed, but still.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> sorry to interact with the service, use the bookmarklet on the main page while browsing any other page

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://talkinator.com/>

</comment><comment><USER7> here's another with dynamic room names <http://yamr.net/hacker_news>

</comment><comment><USER8> Needs a lot of work, to say the least.</comment>


No one agrees on what DevOps means – not even employers - <AUTHOR> https://triplebyte.com/blog/no-one-agrees-on-what-devops-means-not-even-employers <comment><USER2> Amazon has been doing a version of DevOps for almost two decades due to the convergence of several of Amazon's core concepts: the Two-Pizza Team, the "Ownership" leadership principle in action (relatively large amount of freedom for a team to do whatever it needs to succeed), an internal mandate for Service-Oriented architecture, and developers holding the pager for their own work (again, Ownership).

This effectively meant that a small team was completely responsible for the design, development, implementation, testing, deployment, and real-time support of a service that provided unique capabilities to the rest of the company or to customers. It created a STRONG incentive to test because if your team's service failed, the team's developers would be paged (frequently in the middle of the night) to immediately fix the service and get it working again.

Development teams have access to a mature set of tools and infrastructure that make it relatively easy to move very quickly to design, develop, test, and deploy services to production as fast as the team is able to.

</comment><comment><USER3> DevOps started out as "Agile Systems Administration". In 2008, Andrew Shafer did a talk called "Agile Infrastructure" addressing issues around involving more of the company in the same disciplines as programmers.

In 2009, Patrick Debois created "DevOpsDays" conference to help to bring it to light. However, it wouldn't begin to trend until about 2010, when people would begin to describe it as a standalone discipline.

Today, DevOps goes beyond just developers, systems administration and infrastructure, its about dev, ops, agile, cloud, open source and business, everything.

DevOps is a movement. There's no certificate, role, set of tools or prescriptive process. There's no specification, it's not a product, or job title. There's no one true voice on what DevOps is or isn't. It's about attitude, ideas, customs and behaviours. Culture, paradigms and philosophy. It's a way of thinking, a way of doing and a way of being. Practicing as well as preaching. It's a conversation. It's about taking the best experiences and sharing those with others.

</comment><comment><USER4> How is this not the accepted definition of DevOps? [http://donovanbrown.com/post/what-is- devops](http://donovanbrown.com/post/what-is-devops)

"DevOps is the union of people, process, and products to enable continuous delivery of value to our end users."

<comment><USER5> That (or something like that) does tend to the accepted definition of DevOps! The problem is that it's a rather abstract definition, and there isn't a lot of consensus on how to apply it.

<comment><USER4> How you apply the practice of continuous delivery can and should vary greatly...the measure is still the same over the different practices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Author of this article here! I definitely want to know if there's anything anyone thinks I missed - I wound up doing a pretty deep dive into how "DevOps" is being defined and applied, but it was largely from the perspective of people hiring, and I suspect that people with different perspectives will also have different opinions.</comment>


Use Your Phone to Unlock Doors with Lockitron - <AUTHOR> http://www.twilio.com/blog/2011/10/use-your-phone-to-unlock-doors-with-lockitron.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=use-your-phone-to-unlock-doors-with-lockitron

<comment><AUTHOR> One lets you get a constant flow of strangers into your house and get paid for it. The other one helps you not go crazy over handling spare keys and revoking access. Integration anyone?</comment>