More Apple Car Thoughts: Money, Design UI, Distribution - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/11/30/more-apple-car-thoughts/ <comment><USER2> If I were producing a car, I'd look into vehicle as a service.

Which means, one monthly price, a lease like object (but without mileage limits), insurance and any maintenance is included, and when the period over (say 24 months), you can return it or trade it in on a new model for a small fee. In a smart world, the cars wouldn't even need to be totally new, they could go thru a re-manufacturing process to replace most wearable components (like the interior, tires, and possibly repainting).

Apple does two things really well, it makes very pretty products, but it also makes products that are generally less complex in use. The most complex part about automobile ownership is the purchase process (and insurance too), if you can remove the complexity, you can make a much better customer experience.

<comment><USER3> Apple has indeed started down the path of iPhone leasing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From one point of view I don't buy in the skepticism surrounding an Apple Car. As many issue could exist, and this article present a long list, Apple has the resources and the capabilities to overcome them.

The problem for Apple right now is that is so huge that any business idea is so small in scale that doesn't move the needle. I mean a 1 billion dollar idea is a great pitch, but for Apple is less the 0.5% in revenue, doesn't make the board level.

From this point of view there are very few industry where you could venture with such a huge scale. The automotive industry is one of them and appears to be ready for disruption. The problem as mentioned in the article is the incredibly low margin. I don't believe you could cut a lot on the cost of production, years of experience have optimized the process an the material that get into a car is that much, you could reduce them by a lot without impacting safety. Apple could try to put a premium on their car, and the margin on ultra-high premium car (Ferrari, Lamborghini...) are higher than Apple's margin. But the price is so high that the revenue is razor thin. The point is, a 30% premium on a device that costs on average 400$ is 120$, doesn't reduce the buyers pool by a lot. A 30% premium on a 20K car is 6K, it change a lot. And if you go in the premium segment is even more.

Final consideration, maybe the price Apple is aiming are not electric car but direct competition with Google's self-driving car. Or if you want car as-a- service. It is something not totally in Apple's DNA but it could provide hefty profit margins. Could be that the release date is 2029 and not 2019?

<comment><USER5> Somebody is arranging to build a car factory in Atlanta. No names given yet.

<comment><USER6> Do you have a source to this?

I haven't seen any news regarding this in any of the auto websites or related sub-reddits

<comment><USER7> [http://faradayfuture.com/press/20151105.html](http://faradayfuture.com/press/20151105.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good insight into entering the car business. But he missed the only thing that matters.

Apple's car must be centered around self-driving, or it wont be relevant. Tesla's Autopilot represents an automotive phase change[1]. A car without autopilot is like using a fax machine instead of an iPhone.

[1] [http://jalopnik.com/teslas-autopilot-system-is-awesome- and-c...](http://jalopnik.com/teslas-autopilot-system-is-awesome-and-creepy- and-a-sig-1736573089)

<comment><USER9> Autopilot is cool, but it's not a game changer by any means. The driver still has to be fully engaged. This is not a system where you can turn it on and then read a book or take a nap.

80% of the benefit of Autopilot is the traffic-aware cruise control. That's basically just a radar unit that keeps you from hitting the car in front. Remarkably useful, but not anything like a phase change.

If and when true autonomous technology arrives, that certainly will be a phase change. And Autopilot is a step (a small one) in that direction. But it is not by itself a prticularly big deal.

(Full disclosure: I've driven maybe 1,000 miles with Autopilot, and a few thousand miles with the pre-Autopilot traffic-aware cruise control.)

<comment><USER8> The key of autopilot is not the current state of the software. The key is that they have shipped it and their learning curve will be steeper and product development faster and more user-proven than the competitors.

Google had an enormous technology lead but they've squandered it on a clowncar that remains a concept. They're overthinking the product, how can we ensure people aren't afraid of the technology? Make it cute. Riiight. Funny how they don't mention any pre-orders.

Shipping autopilot was bold and smart. Tesla has a deterministic path forward. Meanwhile Google and the traditional car companies are lost in indecision. And Apple is starting out even further behind. Tesla's autopilot is a wake-up call for all of them.

EDIT: Qworg, they can add a sensor to the cars they ship at any time. They did it in the past and you can be sure they are doing it now. The others still need to figure out how to ship a single car.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't take it as far as you have - releasing Autopilot this early was the right move, but the current sensor mix will limit the applicability of their data gathering until they ship new hardware.

I'm not sure GoogleX had to approach self-driving as a product. At least, not until Alphabet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This car stuff still doesn't make sense to me.

One big thing I don't understand about these Apple car rumors is what is Apple supposed to be doing that current automotive groups are not? If you're new to a product area, building a car using CMs (makes sense) with subsystems sourced from the CM or outside suppliers (also makes sense), where's the je ne sais quoi that makes the Apple car compelling over other options? How can you have an advantage over the established manufacturers, if you're sourcing parts/knowledge (e.g., BMW's nifty CFRP material) from your competition? What's the sustainable competitive advantage?

An obvious answer would seem to be design, but I don't buy that Apple producing a better UI than the current car manufacturers is fait accompli. On infotainment, CarPlay is pretty frustrating to use, to the point that I question if anyone from Apple has actually used it while driving: legibility is awful (especially for Maps), Siri doesn't work well in the noisy car environment as a primary navigation tool, and touch operation takes too much eye attention. Some of the usability failures are due to current Apple styling choices (e.g., fonts that are too thin), but many are (as I see it) due to the unsuitability of the Apple multitouch UI paradigm for the car. For comparison, I'd rate both Chrysler's UConnect and BMW's iDrive as superior in usability. I have no doubt that CarPlay can be improved (e.g., physical jog wheels), but I see those improvements as teaching away from the Apple's UI paradigm and towards the existing competitors in the auto world. As to interior or exterior design, I also remain skeptical: Apple tends to pick materials that don't wear well in use, and we're talking about a product that will have far longer lifecycle than anything in the current Apple lineup. I'm sure Apple could produce something that looks nice, but plenty of marques make nice looking cars. Nice appearance for cars is commoditized.

Apple's current supply chain and manufacturing processes are a hell of an advantage in consumer electronics, but there would seem to be very little overlap with automotive. I guess that applies broadly too, there seems to be so little overlap with Apple's current corporate experience and advantages in consumer electronics and the automotive arena.

edit: Also, JLG's point on maintenance is poppycock. Electric cars may have _reduced_ maintenance, but to suggest that tires and wiper blades are all one has to worry about is plain wrong. Part of the product lifecycle considerations includes recalls, e.g., Takata airbags.

<comment><USER11> What can Apple do different than big incumbents? How about all the stuff HN goes gaga over when Tesla does it?

I think you're selling design as a difference short, for Apple design is holistic and affects the entire product experience not just the look and feel or the entertainment ux.

They design the manufacturing process to squeeze out nickels on the dollar and using CM means they avoid legacy overhead that weighs down behemoths like GM, VW and Toyota. They also don't have any legacy overhead tied to engineering around ICE. As we've seen with Tesla, they had to reinvent almost everything because most of the problems traditional car companies had been working on don't exist in an all-electric vehicle.

Apple designs the buying process, which for cars is nightmare fuel for most people. Even in their normal retail stores, buying is easier, you can pick up some things off the shelf, ring it up yourself right where you're standing with the Store app and then walk out. This may be Apple's biggest advantage from the customer's perspective.

Carplay I haven't used but I think you may be selling this short too, on /r/cars when an industry entertainment guy asked what they should be doing the most upvoted response was: get out of the way and make dumb screens for Android Auto and CarPlay [1]. Maybe you're right though and it is outclassed by some current offerings. Perhaps this area is an Apple weakness but another possibly is that CarPlay is to iCar as the Motorola ROKR was to the iphone.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2vfubz/i_am_one_of_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2vfubz/i_am_one_of_the_lead_engineers_responsible_for/)

You talk about Apple's materials being shoddy but that is not the impression I have (outside of charging cables). My iphone 3gs and 4s have held up very well and metal frame ipads, macbooks and iphones seem to do even better. Greg Koenig's much linked post about their Watch manufacturing [2] basically said Apple is operating at the pinnacle of craftsmanship when it comes to materials, precision and finish. One quote of many possible: _" I see a process that could only have been created by a team looking to execute on a level far beyond what was necessary or what will be noticed. This isn't a supply chain, it is a ritual Apple is performing to bring themselves up to the standards necessary to compete against companies with centuries of experience."_ There is plenty of room for technical gimmicks here in the auto industry and I fully expect a video of Jony Ive explaining how revolutionary it is for safety when the entire carframe is milled from a single piece of aluminum.

[2] [http://atomicdelights.com/blog/a-glimpse-at-how-the-apple- wa...](http://atomicdelights.com/blog/a-glimpse-at-how-the-apple-watch-is- made)

<comment><USER7> > They design the manufacturing process to squeeze out nickels on the dollar > and using CM means they avoid legacy overhead that weighs down behemoths > like GM, VW and Toyota.

GM's legacy overhead was discharged during their bankruptcy. As to DFM and manufacturing costs, the auto market is viciously competitive, and I don't see how newcomer Apple and their CMs are going to do something that the existing manufacturers haven't done already to maintain competitiveness in the current market.

> They also don't have any legacy overhead tied to engineering around ICE. As > we've seen with Tesla, they had to reinvent almost everything because most > of the problems traditional car companies had been working on don't exist in > an all-electric vehicle.

Don't know what you mean by legacy overhead wrt. ICE. As to Tesla, that statement reads bombastic given previous efforts by others in battery electric vehicles. Beyond previous efforts by others, I'd say that BMW has done more innovation with their i sub-brand than Tesla has done, especially wrt. vehicle weight. Tesla does cool stuff, but the evangelism is tiring.

> Apple designs the buying process, which for cars is nightmare fuel for most > people.

I completely agree that the current car purchasing process sucks, even for "no hassle" dealers, but how much can Apple do here? So much of the pain is finance- and paperwork-related, and even if Apple brings in their own financing, that can't get around the legal requirements for the paperwork.

> Carplay I haven't used but I think you may be selling this short too…

I agree that CarPlay sounds like a great idea, so much so that I unceremoniously ripped out my car's stock headunit to put in an aftermarket Pioneer unit with CarPlay a year ago. The problem is in the execution. Some stuff is almost magical, like automatically offering to navigate to the next appointment in my calendar; mostly though it's frustrating because it isn't reliable (especially in cell coverage-poor areas) and requires too much cognitive load to use. I have no doubt that Apple could improve it, but I don't know that the will is there because I think they would need to acknowledge that their current look and interaction paradigm aren't suited for in-car use.

> You talk about Apple's materials being shoddy but that is not the impression > I have (outside of charging cables). My iphone 3gs and 4s have held up very > well and metal frame ipads, macbooks and iphones seem to do even better.

I too have had good experiences with the metals, although the stuff using 6000-series aluminum is a bit dent-prone; I have no experience with the 7000-series containing Apple devices but would naturally expect that they would do much better. I was however specifically thinking of their PU and leather iPhone and iPad accessories: they look disgusting after only a week's use in the lighter colors, and I was mentally picturing the touch surfaces of a car using the same materials.

> There is plenty of room for technical gimmicks here in the auto industry and > I fully expect a video of Jony Ive explaining how revolutionary it is for > safety when the entire carframe is milled from a single piece of aluminum.

Sounds a little expensive to insure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's one way to look at it: Tim Cook's deep expertise is in logistics, exclusive supplies, and large-scale production runs.

What industry has been stagnating, is hence most ripe for re-invention, and heavily involves problems in Cook's favorite domain?

While Steve Jobs was passionate about computers as wheels for the mind and about gestalt esthetics, Tim Cook is passionate about supply lines. Different people, distinct ambitions.

</comment><comment><USER12> I can't imagine this is the case, but what if they're building an OS/UI/experience that car manufacturers would build into their vehicles? That would go against everything they've ever done but would be easier and would remove them from direct liability (depending on what features it offered). 30% on a car might be difficult for even Apple to pull off but 30% on a $2-5K option would probably be something most people would spring for. I imagine it would put Google in a tough position, even if they had superior features (like better self-driving).

<comment><USER13> They can't really innovate the UI. The UI for a car is the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake. They can't change that. They might make a slightly better navigation/entertainment package but honestly I'd rather have a simple radio and manual climate controls anyway. My phone handles music and navigation, I don't need to spend an extra $2K-$5K to duplicate that.

Apple has always produced high quality consumer electronics used mostly for entertainment. Cars are entirely out of their realm of experience. Cars are too competitive and are subject to too much regulation and liability to make 30%. I think it's a huge mistake for them but time will tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A better question than what could Apple do better (everything [1]), is WHY would Apple enter the market?

Answer: The automobile is the ultimate mobile platform.

What can I do with the ultimate mobile platform? Keep my users connected. Keep my users entertained. Keep my users happy. Remove inconvenient interactions with the outside world (tolls, drive throughs, parking, driving...).

How can I extract value from the ultimate mobile platform? Sell (or lease) the platform. Sell advertisements. Collect a percent of each interaction with the outside world. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK JUST ONE! You can mix and match depending on the application.

\---

Manufacturing ONE car is not particularly difficult. Designing ONE car is a little complicated. Selling ONE car is pretty easy.

Manufacturing vehicles at scale is hideously complicated[2]. A small example using product volume alone: a MacBook Pro is 1770.6 cm3; the Frunk of a Tesla is 150079 cm3 - you can fit almost 85 Macbooks into one of the smaller storage areas on the vehicle.

85 MacBooks cost in the same ballpark as one Tesla.

You can compare almost any other stats and get the same picture.

\---

1\. What's the biggest room in the Universe? The room for improvement.

2\. I used to work in IT for Automotive Manufacturing. "We have all the problems of a major theme park and a major zoo", and we have to make cars too!

</comment><comment><USER15> all I want in life is for my car to have Apple Pay so that I can go through the McDonald's drive-thru and have to do nothing but order my food. bonus if it knows my order ahead of time because I always get the same thing and I have to say nothing at all.

<comment><USER16> If it is self driving and super smart, it detects when you are hungry, automatically goes through the nearest drive-thru, order something based on your nutrition requirements, and you just have to chew when an inbuilt robotic hand pushes the food into your mouth.

<comment><USER17> Can't we get rid of the chewing bit, it's such an inconvenience.</comment></comment></comment>


'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says - <AUTHOR> https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2019/01/16/ford-f-150-electric-pickup-truck/2595515002/ <comment><USER2> This is a big deal. The F-Series is the single most popular _vehicle_ in the US, and nearly 900K of them are sold every year!

In fact, the top 3 models in the US are F-Series, Silverado, and Ram, so the environment will definitely appreciate the electrified competition the F-Series will force.

<comment><USER3> I can't believe that pickups are the three most sold models in the US. That's really insane. [https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-and- trucks...](https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-and-trucks-in- america-in-2018-2018-8#2-chevrolet-silverado-291074-107-19)

<comment><USER4> I started driving a truck 15 years ago after a number of sports cars/sedans/etc. I will never go back.

Its not insane when you consider any number of factors, starting with the fact that Americans are BIG. As a large person myself (although not overweight), I'm here to tell you that what a 120 pound 5'6" person finds comfortable frequently is painful for me.

Second, I spend upwards of 2+ hours a day sitting my my car, spending a couple grand extra a year for a seat that is 6" wider, doesn't require me to have the flexibility of a 15 year old doing a deep knee bend every-time I get in/out of my car, and allows me to sit upright rather than tilting the seat back into the second row is well worth it.

Third, while there are some SUV's and maybe minivans that qualify on the comfort front, they either tend to be less efficient, cost more, or have social stigma associated with them.

Sure if I had two vehicles, I might be able to get away with driving the truck on the weekend or when I actually need it, but the convenience of being able to throw a bike, kayak, lawn mower, TV, piece of plywood/drywall/2x4/etc in the back when I need to is worth it. Plus, I tow something maybe once a year, but again, if you only have 1 vehicle.. The two vehicle argument might make more sense, if there was space and insurance/taxes/etc were per person rather than per vehicle.

Finally, part of the problem is the American car market. Sedan seems to frequently translate to econobox. In Europe a basic car is smaller, but somehow frequently seems to have far more leg and headroom than a similar American car. This space problem seems to extend from the econoboxes in the US to the luxury car market as well. Apparently in the US, taking an econobox, putting leather and a bigger engine in while leaving the chassis/etc the same (or streamlining it and making it even smaller as honda/acura seems to do) is common. The result is that if your bigger than average, you likely don't fit in something that isn't a SUV/Truck.

<comment><USER5> Interestingly (perhaps?) we got a Leaf a few months ago and the biggest thing that surprised me is that it is _massive_ inside. I guess because the battery is stored under the floor. Although I have relatively short arms for someone my height (5' 10"), I still think it's instructive to say that when I'm sitting in the passenger seat, I can't touch the dash without leaning forward. And, again, I have slightly shorter legs, but with the seat all the way forward, I can still stretch out my legs without bending them and not touch the front. I have a long body (if it weren't for my short legs, I would be well over 6') and I can wear a straw hat in the car and still have a couple of inches of clearance. Not so sure about width... I'm probably "average sized" for a North American (fat for a Japanese person -- my wife likes to remind me...) and the width is perfectly comfortable.

My supposition is that electric vehicles are just a lot more efficient on space. The leaf isn't a huge car externally (although it's not exactly small either), but it's the biggest interior I've ridden in for a long time (probably not since my Grandfather's Buick).

As for the 2 car issue, I actually don't use a car much at all. The only reason we have one is because my wife insists that she needs it. Getting things delivered is both more convenient and cheaper from my perspective. The trade off is that I need to plan ahead a day or so, but I don't actually have to lift big heavy stuff. If I need to haul something bigger, I just rent the appropriate vehicle. I usually end up renting once or twice a year. It saves massive amounts of money. It _is_ a lifestyle change, but it's got upsides as well as downsides.

<comment><USER6> Tesla same; drove one a few weeks ago, had 6 adults in it, and room for more I think. More than enough room.

<comment><USER4> Tesla at least in the case of the model S, has quite respectable specifications, but I physically could not drive one a couple years back. IIRC, Like the newer mustangs the seat angle drives my knees into the dash at an angle which doesn't provide enough clearance to get my feet into position. ALSO IIRC, I had to lean the seat way back to keep my head off the ceiling. If I had one handy I would go measure why it doesn't work and compare it with their official head/legroom numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hopefully they make a version that isn't absolutely gigantic. I've wanted a basic, no-frills 4x4 pickup truck with a 6 foot bed for years now. Problem is, they're all gigantic. And, they all have back seats!

Ford released a new Ranger, which is nearly large as everything else out there. In the late 80's / early 90's there were all types of small trucks on the road (including the ranger). Now, there's zero options in US for something that resembles those vehicles.

Currently, I drive a compact SUV (Honda HRV), which does nearly everything I need. But, I have to line the hatch in a tarp when I deal with anything dirty. I'd love a truck version of this car, but the options are just absurdly large.

<comment><USER8> Because the pickup isn't a work vehicle. It is a statement, a bit of fashion. That's where the market is. People want to look like they need a pickup. In reality, they would be better served by a minivan. They are why every truck has back seats.

A more honest answer is probably to get the smallish SUV and buy a trailer. An 8'x4' metal trailer, with full wheels, will let you haul the wood/stuff those few times a year you need to. When I was in university I had a small Jeep and a proper trailer. On big climbing/camping trips I could haul more stuff than any pickup. An 8'x4'x2' trailer is bigger than all but the biggest pickup beds. The bed was also lower, which made things like motorcycles much easier to load.

<comment><USER9> Good grief the bed heights are ridiculous now. Forget about reaching over the side and grabbing something without having to climb in: and I'm 6' tall! I've mastered this maneuver where I jump up and land with my stomach over the edge of the bed. It's uncomfortable but I can actually reach something. My father is three inches taller than I am, but it was still something of a revelation for him a couple of weeks ago when he realized what I was doing. Now he's doing it too.

It didn't used to be like this, before every pickup had to be 4WD with tall suspensions to handle towing heavy trailers. I'd like to buy an old truck just so I can actually reach my tools. Instead I'm thinking of getting one of those dinky Ford Transit Connects, because it will keep everything dry as well as accessible.

<comment><USER10> > Ford Transit Connects

That vehicle, and others like it, is the standard work vehicle for European people with equipment to move. Pickups are very rare.

"Transit" is almost a generic word for any van in the UK since the middle sized one is so common. "White van man" is derogatory, usually used when there's one illegally parked or driving carelessly.

Anyway, the method is well tested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Rivian is the much needed kick in the nuts. When it turn out to be a viable truck and not just vaporware with lofty promises, people took note. I am by no means a truck or suv type guy but the idea of full electric one is very intriguing, if only I had the space. I can imagine the allure of great low end torque, improved storage capacity and the fuel savings for the more leisurely drivers, who don't need to tow 10 tons or haul 1-2 tons which is frankly not the case for the vast majority of the people in my experience.

People keep saying lithium batteries loose capacity and stuff but less energy dense chemistries than the one in your mobile phone fare better in an automotive setting.

Big automotive companies had all the time in the world to come up with the tech of the future but they squandered the opportunity. Upstarts seem to be poised to eat their cake.

<comment><USER12> > _Upstarts seem to be poised to eat their cake._

Probably not. I think Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of battery electric vehicles within the next 3 years. VW is also talking about licensing their MEB electric car platform to Ford (though not necessarily for this F-150).

<comment><USER13> I do like the look of the Golf GTE, but it's not sold here (Australia) and I don't trust VAG as a company.

In my estimation, electric is perfect for the smaller second car, where it becomes a no-brainer for 95% of commuting and shopping tasks. Tesla is going for the electric-car-first market. Volkswagen, BMW and others seem to be throwing darts at the wall to see what sticks.

Right now the most interesting future products are coming from Hyundai-Kia. In particular I'm looking at the Kia Niro EV with quiet anticipation. A completely normal and boring car that gets all the normal and boring stuff right—but with a well sorted pure electric power train.

[https://youtu.be/AR5sDwF5aBM?t=103](https://youtu.be/AR5sDwF5aBM?t=103)

<comment><USER12> Yes, I agree the Hyundai Kona EV is the best value for money today. It's got good range at a good price.

But the upcoming Volkswagen I.D. models are also cars which get the normal and boring things right:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Tqw9LX3QE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Tqw9LX3QE)

[https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/concept- cars/volkswage...](https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/concept- cars/volkswagen-id)

The I.D. hatchback is supposed to be priced around the same as a diesel Golf. They say they'll be able to drive down prices though the economies of scale of their MEB platform:

[https://jalopnik.com/the-fascinating-engineering-behind- vws-...](https://jalopnik.com/the-fascinating-engineering-behind-vws-electric- car-pla-1829257860)

And for high-end luxury cars VW will have the Porsche Taycan and at least three models of Audi e-tron in the next few years (Audi e-tron SUV to be released soon, a future Audi e-tron GT based on the Porsche Taycan's platform, and a future Audi CUV based on the same MEB platform as the I.D. models).

<comment><USER13> All true but again, I don't trust VAG as a company so I'm not inclined to purchase any of their products. I personally know too many people burned by their various catastrophes with their DSG gearboxes and diesel engines that I'd simply be too scared to hand over my money.

<comment><USER14> That's interesting, they are perceived as a quality/aspirational brand in the UK.

<comment><USER13> They are here as well (Australia) among some people but their reputation for reliability and longevity is trash among many segments of commentator and consumer.

Mazda has an unusually strong footprint in Australia, particularly for hatchbacks and crossovers.

Most non-German European brands are very unpopular, selling in relatively minuscule numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Used to own a factory Ford Ranger EV.

The vehicle was a dead ringer for the gas version, down to the same weird gearshift off-by-half-a-position thing. I even gave people rides and they didn't notice it wasn't gas.

Alas, it had a second-hand 312V lead acid pack made up of out-of-production 8V batteries. One battery went bad and then it became a yearlong half-finished battery changeout. Sold it for about what I paid for it.

Would buy one (if they ever made any more) in a heartbeat. Word is Ford crushed most of the ones they made, rather than all of them.

</comment><comment><USER16> I honestly think that this will help make electric vehicles more mainstream. People here in the US love their F-150's, and if Ford could make die hard truck fans switch from a V8 to a TTV6, then they're the ones that can convince the same fans consider buying a hybrid or electric F-150.

<comment><USER17> And I think the cultural problems will scuttle the whole thing.

[https://jalopnik.com/bro-truck-owners-are-deliberately- block...](https://jalopnik.com/bro-truck-owners-are-deliberately-blocking- tesla-superc-1831322063)

> Bro-Truck Owners Are Deliberately Blocking Tesla Supercharger Spots

> I generally like people, which may be why I never fail to be surprised when > I encounter people being truly unrepentant dickheads for no good reason > whatsoever. That's what seems to have been going down at a Tesla > Supercharger in Hickory, North Carolina, where a Tesla owner was attempting > to charge her car, only to find the Supercharger spots blocked by at least > three pickup trucks, with the trucks owners chanting "Fuck Tesla." What the > hell?

The problem is that electric cars are associated with "Believing In Global Warming" which is associated with Blue Tribe. Red Tribe will fight this.

<comment><USER18> Many people bought Teslas because they were cool, not because they were helping the environment. Tesla gave consumers what they wanted AND it happened to be better for the environment.

If Ford can deliver an electric F-Series, it will have the same effect on truck owners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Now, if only they would revive the light trucks of the 1980s. Even the new Ranger looks massive (perhaps, that's only looks though?).

<comment><USER20> We had a 3rd-Generation Toyota 4WD that was simply amazing -- I think we sold it with 350K miles on it, and it's probably still running today. I looked at a recent Tacoma, and was shocked at how huge they'd gotten.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux#Third_generation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux#Third_generation_\(N30,_N40;_1978–1983\))

<comment><USER21> The new Tacoma is basically a ringer for the old Tundra.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is plenty of demand for short range commercial pickup trucks. Think of "on campus" maintenance vehicles. You need to tow equipment trailers, haul tools and bulk items, but you don't put many miles on them. A trip to the gas station is a pure waste of employee time, just charge them up at night.

Marketing may prevent Ford from leading with a short range truck, but a less than eye wateringly expensive vehicle with a lighter battery pack and less range would find buyers and make a safer, low volume launch.

<comment><USER23> There's demand sure, but not much profit available. Those fleet buyers choose the cheapest stripper spec trucks and have no brand loyalty. So the manufacturers focus on more profitable segments.

<comment><USER21> It's interesting though, with lower operating costs & less maintenance, they might be worth the premium even for fleet. Fleet buyers get the stripper spec because leather and A/C doesn't matter, but electric might influence the bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I will not buy another pickup when my F-150 is gone. So many god-dang people keep asking to borrow mine to run their errands.

<comment><USER25> buT HaRDly aNYonE aCtuaLLY haS USe fOr A TrucK

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This would have been amazing for when I lived in a small town in the subarctic. My truck was always useful for things like dump runs or picking up lumber etc. But the town was 20 km end-to-end so I would rarely drive more than 10 km at a time. Of course you'd need a second car or truck for longer trips, but everybody has more than one car in a rural area anyways.

Completely flips the environmental option that many chose where you drive a Prius to work and a truck long haul, to the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER27> The 2019 RAM 1500 already has an "eTorque" system which also known as an "mild-hybrid".

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a really worried feeling about this. Don't get me wrong, it needs to happen, but why start off the transition with commercial? It's the consumers who are concerned with buying gas, environmental, and politics. The elephant in the room is Tesla and of course every auto company will follow, further eating into the consumer sedan to SUV market. So why doesn't Ford start there, then work there way up to migrate its trusted largest asset F-Series? I worry Ford is about to look really stupid, sticking out like a sore thumb.

<comment><USER29> Well Tesla does have the Semi so it's not like this is completely virgin ground. Presumably they've got better data than we do re: mileage needs and its possible (just guessing) that many of the F-Series buyers might make sense re: living within range of a single charge while also seeing more of an impact given the lower MPG of trucks.

Something else to keep in mind is that American big auto ironically hasn't been, how shall I say this, umm... great at doing passenger cars for the last 40 years. So another thought is that they might see this as a place they can be more competitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Imagine the options for fleets- you could have electrical outlets along the bed to let you plug in and use electric tools powered by your truck! That would be huge for maintenance vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ford: we're going to make _an_ all-electric F-Series truck

Might be a better title

</comment><comment><USER32> so after 5 years the battery in my laptop is just toast.

can anyone comment on what happens to an electric car after 5 years? 10, 20?

i have a truck with 350,000 kms on it. will this still be possible?

<comment><USER33> As with every manufactured good, certain things are prioritized. Your small commodity laptop battery was likely made to be cheap and light, but not necessarily built to last a long time.

That's like comparing a lawn mower engine and an engine in a car designed to last hundreds of thousands of kilometers. They just weren't designed with the same things in mind.

Tesla especially has done a fantastic job with the chemistry and cooling allowing their batteries to have long life even when they are rapidly charged (which usually wrecks batteries).

<comment><USER21> Here's one way to think about it, for example- is your laptop battery thermally managed, with its own heating & cooling system to keep it at ideal temperature? Chevy Bolt's is.

<comment><USER9> "Bolt" would be the logical name for a hypothetical Chevy electric truck.

<comment><USER21> There is already a Chevy Bolt, in case you had not heard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron Oh god, the customer base nearly shat the bed when they announced a transition from steel to aluminium panels... Looking forward to the uproar this will cause!

</comment><comment><USER34> Can anyone tell me why diesel hybrids aren't really a thing?

Edit: should have Googled - this makes sense: [https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080282_diesel- hybrids-...](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080282_diesel-hybrids-why- they-dont-make-as-much-sense-as-you-think)

</comment><comment><USER35> I'd love to see them try. The difficulty of making a pickup truck aerodynamically efficient are substantial.

<comment><USER36> There's no reason why pickup trucks need to have the MASSIVE flat grills they do today, other than aesthetic preferences. They're a disaster aerodynamically as well as for pedestrian safety. Obviously there's a lot more to it (like the bed) but it's a start.

<comment><USER37> I think you're referring to the massive grill guards on the front of many pickups. Are you saying "no reason other than aesthetic preferences" because you feel like it?

Deer at night are a major hazard in much of the land. I hit a small one at night a few weeks ago in central Texas and the dead center impact managed to destroy the chintzy plastic grill in my car and buckle the radiator. I was lucky at that. I was on a four lane highway, doing 50 in a 60 zone, and being vigilant. Still, like most major impacts with deer, this happened completely without warning. As fleet of foot as deer are, they still seem to be slightly overly optimistic about crossing the road before the vehicle arrives, and with cars as fast as they are, there is little room for error. (Try communicating that to the deer)

My mom 'totaled' her car a few years back by hitting a bigger deer at a little faster speed. An impact without any warning.

<comment><USER9> _Try communicating that to the deer_

PSA: the way to communicate with any roadside animal is to lay on the horn. They rarely experience horn-honking, and it often shocks them right out of whatever mental rut led them to run onto the road in the first place. While car lights have a dazzling effect, car horns are scary to animals.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, the horn usually gets to them, when you can see them up ahead, but one should always brake first. I used to hear 'Never swerve, use the brake instead!', and I couldn't imagine anyone with any driving experience thinking that swerving was a good idea in the first place. I never had a serious collision with a deer that was 'caught in the lights', standing on the road. Always able to slow down enough to avoid or slow bump. It's the interceptor deer on a full run that did the most damage, which happens more often than one might think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Even a plugin electric hybrid would be a big in my opinion (30-60 mile range). We have owned a Volt now for over a year and it has been great. Since owning it we average 75 mpg. My wife can nearly drive to work and back on all electric.

I have an F-150, a ~50 mile range hybrid would cover nearly all of my driving.

<comment><USER39> Plugin hybrids make great sense, but they don't sell well: [https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales- scorecard/](https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Title is deceptive

</comment><comment><USER41> Finally. I've been waiting for an all electric truck, and Ford is a decent brand

</comment><comment><USER42> They're going to make all-electric (and hybrid) options. What the headline first made me think was that the whole lineup would be all (=only) electric.

<comment><USER43> I was thinking the same thing. There isn't enough power generation capacity in the US to support something like that.

<comment><USER44> Wrong. For the energy it takes to refine 1 gal of gas you can drive an EV around 27 miles.

<comment><USER45> And best of all, electricity just produces itself!

<comment><USER46> No, but a central power generator can produce energy far more cheaply and efficiently than a consumer gas engine optimized for mobility.

<comment><USER45> My point was that you should be comparing production and consumption directly. Of course electric is better, we wouldn't have EV's otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is terrible. How am I supposed to roll coal in an electric?

</comment><comment><USER48> Please no. A hydraulic hybrid approach would be so much more appropriate.

[https://www.epa.gov/cati/hydraulic-hybrid- vehicles](https://www.epa.gov/cati/hydraulic-hybrid-vehicles)

<comment><USER49> Why? I would estimate that well over 90% of miles driven in F150s are with no significant load. In addition while delivery trucks are driven for many hours per day, most passenger vehicles are not.

<comment><USER48> Hydraulic hybrids recapture 80% - 90% when braking as opposed to 20% - 30% for electric hybrids. Hydraulic hybrids much better fit the characteristics of a vehicle such as a pickup truck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> They said they are going to make an all electric version.

On Hacker News this becomes: "We're going to make F-Series all-electric."

Then HN readers (the current top comment) read it as: "We are going to make ALL F-Series trucks all-electric."

</comment><comment><USER51> I really hope they don't ignore fuel cell technology or other phase change energy storage systems when they do this. Batteries are not convenient for the vast amount of their consumers in non population dense areas. (For those of you from cities, an F150 is a status symbol everywhere else in the USA).

<comment><USER23> Fuel cells appear to be a dead end. There's no efficient way to produce hydrogen, unless electric power becomes far cheaper than it is today.</comment></comment>


Raspberry Pi Zero – Programming Over USB - <AUTHOR> http://pi.gbaman.info/?p=699 <comment><USER2> Bookmarked! Still waiting for the PiZero to become available, but meanwhile I'm satisfied that I can continue developing on the big Pi and port everything to the Zero.

<comment><USER3> I'm kicking myself for not picking up one yesterday. Adafruit had a hundred available, but by the time I had found other things to let me justify to myself paying the shipping charge, they were all out.

<comment><USER4> Just wondering what the sticking point was? I would buy at least 10 of them if there were any in stock the > 30 times I've checked recently.

<comment><USER3> The two sticking points were that they were limit 1, and that I was very very tired, having not slept well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like a cheap way to build a (somewhat) small DIY keylogger!

<comment><USER6> A key logger would require both an USB input and output.

However, the idea of a backdoor delivery is interesting. You could e.g. have a switch for the three major platforms (Linux, Win, OS X) wired to GPIO, and then use flaws in USB descriptor parsing (or in drivers) to hijack the machine automatically. Or just have it emulate a disk drive and rely on automounting together with a virtual keyboard to run commands.

<comment><USER7> Kali Nethunter does this from Android phones, and I know they distribute images for assorted arm boards, maybe they'll start offering that sort of things for devices with the proper hardware

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's very cool! Will definitely have to have a play with this.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, that's pretty cool.</comment>


Ask HN: YCombinator for Electronics based Start-ups? - <AUTHOR>

As an EE, I was wondering why there is not a wide world for electronics start-ups like there is for software/internet start-ups.
Suppose I want to develop a product called "ipod" and want to start a company named "apple". Where should one start ?
The path is easy for an internet startup (you develop product, find investors, try to make traction..).
There is not a ycombinator for electronics startups. (I am not talking about a health tracker gadget which you can track your heart beats via your iphone, I am talking about startups that really do hardcore electronics like chip designs...)
I also couldn't find many resources for electronicsware startups. Just follow eetimes and spectrum (ieee) websites.
I really want to discuss the reasons here. <comment><USER2> The following is a guess, I can't speak for sure the true reasoning if there is one.

 _I think_ it's not that incubators and investors aren't willing to invest in hardware development companies but its much easier to:

A] Understand the software business as most investors/incubators probably have strong knowledge on software development than they do hardware development.

B] Prototyping, iterating, and testing software/web/mobile base ideas these days are much more low risk, quick development time, and relatively easy to measure results (rather quicker to test).

C] It's a very expensive risk to back a first time entrepreneur who is unable to prototype out some initial version of their hardware device themselves. Even most kickstarter projects (at least the successful ones I've seen) have managed to go out of their way to model a working prototype on their own.

D] This is probably the most likely answer... majority of the companies applying are very software/web/mobile centric. It's not that YC or other incubators are biased just like how they wish more women would start companies, but the market are mostly people focusing on ideas in the software/web/mobile space.

With that said, I realize it takes a lot more than 1-2 guys to prototype out an iPod, generally speaking. Afterall, Apple probably had a decent size team of experts working on the iPod for 1-2 years before the first product was introduced.

To be fair, there are some hardware base companies that did raise funding without a product but the ones I know of are usually backed by proven entrepreneurs (not saying that yet-to-be-proven entrepreneurs can't). Ooma is an example that comes to mind.

There are hackerspaces that do hardware development but I guess there just isn't as many hardware guys as there are software guys. Not to mention the barrier of entry is probably a lot harder (not just in time and cost but also in picking up hardware knowledge vs learning to program). From talking to my friend who graduated as an EE major, most hardware projects are very specialize and require multiple people to work on to produce where as software can be done with 1 guy building the prototype in most cases.

</comment><comment><USER3> Take a look a my manufacturing guide, if you have more questions about a specific idea I'd be happy to vet it for you. If it's viable I'll tell you how to progress.

If you're smart you can develop a prototype for far less than you would think.When I was actively taking products from concept through production I could do it for under $10,000.

But if you're talking chip set design that's in a whole new category. It really makes no sense to get that in detail now a days since it's really hard to achieve scale and bring the costs down. Off the shelf components are much cheaper, you would be amazing at how cheaply you can buy parts with a little creativity and negotiation skills. If you want to do chip set design, you need to first find a company that needs the chip, design it, and then establish a relationship with a fab and have a minimum order in hand. It's not that hard once you learn how to handle and manage the channel.

It's a very broad area, can't really help you without more details on the specific area you are thinking about.

As an aside, I've moved from hardware to web/mobile software (taught myself iOS, php, and rails) because I got tired of dealing with all the new regulations and hurdles. So be warned before starting a project.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1840896>

<comment><USER4> Thanks!! I missed your post the last time. This will be extremely useful as I have just started prototyping an electronics product I hope to get released soon and your I think links will nicely fit my needs.

Can you comment on the regulations you're talking about as I'd like to prepare for future hurdles as best as I can. I'm guessing you mean compliance with FCC regulations and such?

For the OP: I have spent about €400 on parts for building two prototype units. Most of the parts were ordered on Mouser and with a few random bits and pieces on ebay. Of course, I'm not building processors or anything like that, but rather consumer (EDIT: well, not really consumer, more like specialized electronics.. I don't expect to ever sell these in an average electronics store) electronic devices (can't release details just yet, as I am in talks with potential investors). Curts links may prove extremely useful here.

<comment><USER3> Make sure while you are prototyping to keep production in mind. If you design for production from the start things get a lot easier as you progress through development to production. That was one of the reasons I can go from concept to production in a week, I would always design for mass production from day one.

Tip: also keep your design as flexible (unconstrained) as possible.

I was doing products targeted towards kids, when Mattel had the lead paint problem the government issued new regulations written by the lobbyists for Mattel. Instead of increasing safety in any meaningful way they just limited any competition by small companies by increased compliance and testing costs drastically. Congress is contemplating a number of other laws that will make it even more of a pain in the ass.

<comment><USER4> Thank you, your advice is very much appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Kickstarter.com</comment>


Thermosonic Bonding - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosonic_bonding <comment><AUTHOR> Excerpts:

"Thermosonic bonding is widely used to wire bond silicon integrated circuits into computers."

[...]

"A thermosonic bond is formed using a set of parameters which include ultrasonic, thermal and mechanical (force) energies."

Future Idea: Bonding should be studied from the perspective of using a variety of substrates/energies, including but not limited to: electricity, magnetism, infrared, light, ultraviolet, sound, and a variety of chemicals and materials (both similar and dissimilar) to be bonded...

The reverse (unbinding) should also be studied, under all of those conditions.

A future science would create all kinds of tables (or perhaps equations) where you could see what effect a specific energy or energies would have on specific materials, at what temperatures, frequencies, combinations, etc.</comment>


Google's Smart Contact Lenses Are Going to Become a Real Thing - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/googles-smart-contact-lenses-are-going-to-become-a-real-1605173326

<comment><USER2> I am hopeful that these sensors will become available eventually, but the more realistic/pessimistic side of me expects that it will be two years or more (possibly much more), and that the cost will be very high, even with help from insurance companies.</comment>


Five arrests in 'fully loaded' Kodi streaming box raids - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38906561 <comment><USER2> It won't make a dent on piracy, in fact the use of Kodi will likely now increase as any press is good press.

Just like electricity, people will always take the path of least resistance. If I open Netflix to watch an episode of something, and they only have half of the series/season, I'm just going to use Kodi to watch it for free. Why would I order a DVD and wait for days? Or buy it and wait hours to download it? Or setup another subscription service for a monthly cost? Why do any of this when I can be watching it within seconds, cost doesn't even factor in, it's just so easy and convenient.

If Kodi/Exodus was a fully legal, licensed platform whereby I could pay monthly/per-show (at an agreeable price), I'd pay - because it's so easy to use and it has almost everything.

Until that day though, I've cancelled all streaming services (as they removed my favourite shows or only offer series/seasons I don't want) apart from Prime as I like the delivery times and cloud storage. I don't even have a TV aerial anymore as that broke, I just have 3 TVs, 3 Firesticks and a Chromecast, job done.

<comment><USER3> >Why do any of this when I can be watching it within seconds, cost doesn't even factor in, it's just so easy and convenient.

Because it is stealing. Some people still believe in paying for value.

Prime has a boat-load of movies and tv shows available for free or pay to watch on demand. I think their prices are a little high for 24hr rental (3.99$), but still it is legal. It is better to not go to jail than to feed one's entertainment lust.

<comment><USER4> > Because it is stealing.

In theft you take something from someone else, and they are then deprived of what you took. I take your loaf of bread, you have one less loaf of bread.

If I _copy_ your movie, you still have your movie.

Now, if I (somehow) get hold of a _copy_ of a digital file you want to sell me, you'll be less likely to be able to get me to buy it (although, studies have shown that those that copy content a lot, also tend to pay for content a lot).

So we need another word than "theft" \- and that word certainly isn't "piracy" \- people that violate copyright, rarely murder people or disrupt trade routes and critical infrastructure.

I'm not saying we don't need some system of compensation if we want to continue to produce art - but just as a boycott is a very passive act of resistance, so is not paying for crippled (DRM) content. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a need to prove that someone watching a copy for free would be more likely to pay for that copy than go outside and play a game of catch if the content wasn't available for copying.

<comment><USER5> If I copy all your emails and financial records have I harmed you?

Are you only harmed if I remove your access to those records?

<comment><USER6> That's yet a different issue. Watching an old episode of Seinfeld does not violate anyone's privacy.

Theft: you have a painting. I took it.

Copyright infringement: You painted a painting. I took a picture of it and sold/gave away prints to all my friends.

Violation of privacy: I got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics.

Warrantless search: The police got into your phone and looked at all your dick pics, possibly finding evidence of a crime.

They are different issues which can look similar at times, but are actually completely separate. Pretending like they are is just adding muck to this discussion.

<comment><USER7> There's one more separate issue.

Piracy: You have a ship. I climbed aboard, murdered some of your crew, and took control of your ship or stole some of your belongings.

<comment><USER8> English words admit to multiple, distinct definitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personally I think the entertainment industry is approaching the pirating issue the wrong way.

They should all be looking into expanding their web tech. Serve ad's to people that want to watch your content for free, have a pay service for those that don't want ad's.

On the other hand I had sky... I paid £70 a month which is A LOT compared to netflix etc, and everytime I wanted to watch something I had to be served with 3 x 1:30' ad' sessions for a 20' episode of friends... I mean why do I even pay if you going to serve me intrusive ad's. No thank you, I prefer having netflix and amazon prime that has a lot to watch and if I want something specifically that isn't available to those 2 am gonna torrent it like a boss.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand what's so hard about putting their whole film catalog online. Let me pay a buck to download any movie your studio produced in some simple format without any crapware or subscriptions or region-locking and I will do so every time instead of pirating.

The marginal cost of offering a movie for downloading must be pretty close to 0. Why can't studios simply tap the opportunity of cheap hassle-free downloads?

<comment><USER11> Studios sign different distribution deals in different regions. These include box office release and "DVD" (web) release schedules. These regional licensing contracts are often in the range of 5-7 years.

As a result, studios cannot simply offer a film or TV series online at the same time for everybody. As the regional contracts expire and the studios restructure them, I expect to see more direct distribution via online channels.

<comment><USER12> As much as I'd like to believe that it's going to get better, in my experience it's getting worse.

Instead of consolidating and simplifying their terms, they are digging deeper and getting more complex. It's not uncommon to see a setup like:

* Show airs during primetime

* Available the next day on on-demand (not that same night)

* Expires from on-demand after 30 days

* Last 5 episodes but not the most recent episode available for purchase per-episode on something like google-play or amazon.

* Large gap between the last 5 episodes and the previous season where it's literally impossible to buy or watch an episode legally.

* second-to-most-current season available on Hulu-Plus

* All seasons previous to that available on netflix or amazon prime (not both)

And that's just in one country, not even taking into account the various restrictions and petty limitations like no HD and no ability to rewind or even pause in some cases. Not to mention the hardware you'd need to watch all of that on a regular TV. You are looking at least at a Fire-stick, Roku or chromecast, a STB from the cable company, and in some cases a PC that can HDMI over to the TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I must say the BBC article does a good job of explaining what a "fully loaded Kodi box" is, keeping it accessible without confusing things.

</comment><comment><USER14> What's different between selling one of these and selling, say a PC with Bittorrent and bookmarks to the movie section of the PirateBay pre-loaded (or whatever website people are using these days)?

<comment><USER15> Intent. These people were selling a box with the specific intent to watch pirated movies. If you were to sell a PC that "just happened" to have links on it then I imagine no one would really bother with you. If you were advertising the PC as a "watch movies for free" PC then the Federation Against Copyright Theft would try to stop you.

<comment><USER16> But you do know that you can watch movies for free if you have internet and a general purpose computer, right? Why is it wrong to say that?

"Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better?

"Warning, this machine can access copyrighted content. Buy it at your own risk."

Is this better?

<comment><USER17> You seem to be trying to argue against the law. As onion2k says, courts consider intent. They will decide if you intended for your customers to break the law, and were complicit in the breaking of the law, or not.

They will only consider real cases, not hypothetical.

> "Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better?

The courts take things in context. If it was sold by a gangster with that wording used for the purpose of informing customers that it can be used to kill people, then that's one thing. If it's used as a warning label so that adults know to keep the knife away from their children for safety, that's another. Courts are not blind; they are _supposed_ to look at context and intent.

You seem to consider the law as some kind of mathematical function where the same input always results in the same output. This is indeed the aim, but context matters. The law doesn't ignore context, so you cannot expect to do so either.

You might find it helpful to read "What Colour are your bits?": [http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

That article talks about copyright, but the point about the law seeing context, and the same nonsense conclusions when attempting to use logic but ignore context, remains the same.

<comment><USER18> Yet another non-attorney on HN attempting to parse law as if it's code. It's common to point of it barely being worth discussing anything legal.

Attorneys and courts have a wide berth with which to determine what a person's intent was. Instances where you can thumb your nose at basic jurisprudence and get off on a technicality of the text of the law is exceedingly rare.

<comment><USER16> Rules are made because people want to break them. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for rules. Don't treat those who disagree as if they were wrong. They are just the reason those rules exist, one as legitimate as the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you can't setup your own Kodi box, I don't know how in the world you would be sold one and actually use it. It isn't simple to setup and it is more complicated to maintain (for someone who couldn't just set one up themselves).

<comment><USER20> the interface is very easy to use, from what I understand these "fully loaded" ones alreaddy have the apps installed and configured, so it would probably be easier than a roku for most people. Then they just dont do any maintenance

<comment><USER21> The interface is one of the worst I've ever seen. I _still_ don't understand how and when and why "Videos" or "Movies" get indexed. You have to have the patience of a monk to attempt to add a media source with a remote control. "Let's see, does it want smb:// ? Should I include my username as part of the string?"

My Kodi install on my smart TV has one purpose: To play things out of a directory on my NAS. Yet I have it added roughly 7 different ways, and have no idea how or why things get cataloged. All I know is I'm too afraid to remove any of the sources because I'm not sure which one's being used.

And I'm not sure I know how to remove a source, either.

I struggled with Kodi on my jailbroken AppleTV2 and it never worked right. At least it does the basic job of playing media from my NAS, so I'm happy. No waiting for Plex to decide to index my content, no fuss, no muss. Open Kodi, play files from NAS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can someone comment on what is the business model of those who set up streaming servers for Kodi etc. ? Bandwidth is expensive , why would you pay for it just to give it away for free ?

<comment><USER23> Aren't they torrents?

<comment><USER22> The news article mentions Premier league and other TV networks . I am guessing that these kodi boxes are being used to consume live TV content or TV shows. A day's worth of shows in high resoution could consume upwards of 4GB. Why would anyone seed that ?

<comment><USER24> I guess you only need one person to do it, and then all of the consumer Kodi boxes will also be seeding.

<comment><USER25> Does live(ish) bittorrent streaming work?

<comment><USER26> Yes, it does. Most popular bit-torrent p2p streaming solution now is Acestream. You can check it yourself.

[http://arenavision.in/](http://arenavision.in/) [http://torrent- tv.ru/channels.php](http://torrent-tv.ru/channels.php)

However, I doubt that 'fully loaded' Kodi boxes uses it, most likely it use simple m3u streams harvested from internets.

<comment><USER25> I didn't know acestream was p2p. I think I may have used it one or twice. Very cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Fact said it believed the suspects had made in the region of £250,000 selling the devices online.

Kodi is free software built by volunteers to bring videos, music, games and photographs together in one easy-to-use application.

Some shops sell legal set-top boxes and TV sticks, often called Kodi boxes, preloaded with the software.

The developers behind Kodi say their software does not contain any content of its own and is designed to play legally owned media or content "freely available" on the internet."

So is this like Popcorn time, then? Did the sellers break laws? Did the developers break laws?

<comment><USER28> Kodi's developers didn't, no. The way the streaming boxes work is they add a bunch of piracy streaming plugins to a Kodi installation. It's not easy for casual users to do this though. If you download Kodi today you can't just access that stuff. You need to enable access to unknown source plugins then find the plugins (and hope they aren't doing anything nefarious), download them and install them in Kodi. It's essentially the same as Android.

Kodi does have a lot of plugins to access a wide variety of free content (nearly 400 video content plugins alone). You can see what is available here: [http://addons.kodi.tv/](http://addons.kodi.tv/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Copyright holders considering DRM to promote the purchase of their work rather than the piracy of their work should really be aware that there are a lot of people who will not consume your product if it's not free. The notion that you're protecting your work is not realistic. For many the options are to consume the product any way they can, or not consume the product. The thinking that DRM will ultimately make someone purchase something they never intended to purchase in the first place is unlikely. By having the pricing reflect this "lost" revenue (which was never lost, it was always assumed) you're only punishing the people who weren't going to pirate your product anyway. You're not punishing pirates. If you make a movie rental $1 instead of $4 you're much more likely to sell the product to interested people as well as the people who would have pirated the product if it were more expensive. Stop investing in DRM. You're wasting your time and the investment to defeat DRM will always be worthwhile to your competition.

</comment><comment><USER30> I know it's slightly off topic, but I can't help thinking that the Federation Against Copyright Theft should be going up against those big businesses that actually steal the copyrights themselves.

So like when one studio steals the copyrights from another, or from the content creator directly.

<comment><USER31> They're not really fighting against that kind of "copyright theft." They're just an industry front group, so they'd never attack their own backers.

<comment><USER30> I know that, it is just the words that make up their acronym mean something different to me. So I find it highly amusing to have them be against copy right theft but be backed by the very people that are most likely to actually steal copyrights. Kind of like coal and oil company lobbyist using Green in the title.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As it has been said before. Piracy is a service problem. Yes, you can rent stuff via amazon but the prices are too high.

I will watch several hours of television and entertainment a night, if I did this via amazon I would end up paying well over $200 a month.

If they can scale that back to something reasonable like $75 a month, I am sure that I would be more willing to pay.

</comment><comment> jack-in-the-box IMO it is similar to pre-install a browser with bookmarks to pages listing, but not necessarily providing, such copyright infringing material. I'm not sure if this is really illegal - I guess it depends on the country you live in.

<comment><USER33> It is a little more complicated than that though. A computer or web browser is general purpose. These boxes are sold specifically for copyright violation or whatever you want to call it (pirating, theft, etc).

Maybe if Mozilla/Google offered a version of Firefox/Chrome that came pre- configured with links to a bunch of torrent sites and bundled in extensions to download torrents, unpack archives and play media it would be similar.

<comment><USER34> That's possibly how it will be presented, but I'd argue you're wrong.

The boxes are specifically _marketed_ for copyright violation, sure. But Kodi is a general-purpose media player. It can manage your DVD tray and all that. Your home videos. Etc.

It's similar to bit-torrent in that it has plenty of legal uses (torrents are great for downloading linux distros).

In the example you're responding to, the computer could easily be marketed in the same way as these boxes, and then there would be little distinction beyond ease-of-use.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "The boxes are specifically marketed for copyright violation, sure. But Kodi is a general-purpose media player."

They're not just marketed for it. They come setup so that you go to the TV shows section and see a list of every TV show and every episode that you can play with one click. So comparing to a computer marketed the same way doesn't make much sense. A more accurate comparison would be selling a laptop that is locked down to the Kodi software setup to stream any TV show or movie the user wants illegally. I'm 99% sure all of the features the fully-loaded boxes come with access to in the UI are illegal.

<comment><USER34> Right. I guess if I were going to tread in those waters, I would literally sell a "fully-loaded kodi box", like I would load every plugin available.

Presumably a great many of them are not related to illegal activities.

Anyway, I've never thought that making it easy to commit a crime was a crime in and of itself. Selling lockpicks is maybe a similar example.

<comment> k-mcgrady I'm not familiar with all the details but the Pirate Bay trial seems analogous.

<comment><USER34> I'm not so sure. It feels similar, but here's the difference, as I see it:

TPB provided direct tracker downloads and/or links to trackers that were illegal files.

These guys are installing some software that is the equivalent of TPB. The software provides "links" (more or less) to illegal video streams, but providing those streams, or the data to find them, is not something these guys have done.

I think this would be more like some other examples in this thread, where maybe you provided a browser or extension that kept up-to-date torrent site bookmarks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Android or iPhone Os, where do you think the money is for developers? - <AUTHOR>

I've opted for Android to make some cash, and from what I see, the android market keeps growing but for some reasons, android users seems to not care much about apps, or at least spending money for apps, at the other hand iphone users spend a lot. Android will shortly probably have the biggest market share, but iphone users will keep spending money, as Business men (not developper, we are talking about money, not the ToS of apple), where do you think the most money will be? Care to share your views? <comment><USER2> Neither. I've been in the business for over a year and the money isn't bad, it's just not enough to sustain a business in and of itself. I wrote about it here: [http://techneur.com/post/440686528/its-all-our-fault-why- bui...](http://techneur.com/post/440686528/its-all-our-fault-why-building-a- business-on-the)

If you want specific numbers, just email me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember seeing a study not too long ago that examined how many apps a typical user on each platform downloaded and how many they paid for. The iPhone users were just a little more spendy than the Android users.

Now, there is a whole lot more competition in the App Store and Android is growing a lot faster. So I suspect the real answer is Android, but that is just conjecture and doesn't take into account the iPad.

I wish I could remember where that study was.

Edit: Magneus linked to what I was thinking of

</comment><comment><USER4> 3 years ago I bought my first Apple computer. Coming to the Apple platform, I was amazed by all the apps my fellow co-workers would buy for their Macs. Most of them were just simple stupid things that cost only a few bucks but I could never see an average non-Apple user buying. I have no statistical evidence, but it seems like Apple users are more susceptible to buying apps, ring tones, songs, and other junk. My advice would be build for the iPhone and if you get something that is very popular or making you a ton of money, then port it over.

<comment><USER5> As a Mac user I don't believe Apple users are susceptible to buying junk. Apple users are more spendy, on average, than a typical Windows users but there is a wide chasm between well designed, simple software and junk.

The typical Windows user won't use more than what came with their PC on the day they bought it. Ever wonder why Dells, HPs, and Gateways come loaded with a lot of crap software? It's because ISVs know that your typical user won't spend more than he has to. If it comes with the PC and it's good enough than they'll use that. But that user will rarely head back to the store to search for an alternative.

When software is well written it's perfectly fine to show the developers some respect by paying for it. That's why the Mac shareware community is in much better shape than the PC side.

<comment><USER4> _Ever wonder why Dells, HPs, and Gateways come loaded with a lot of crap software? It's because ISVs know that your typical user won't spend more than he has to._ You are forgetting that Dell, HP, etc get kickbacks from the software companies.

<comment><USER5> You can take your chances with retail and hope someone is curious enough to pay for it or you can pay an OEM to include it and atleast the curious part will be satisfied.

Whether it's shelf space or disk space ISVs pay for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> These numbers are a few months old, but they may help you make your decision:

[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/25/6-ways-iphone-and- and...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/25/6-ways-iphone-and-android- users-differ/?source=yahoo_quote)

</comment><comment><USER7> I can't speak for actual numbers, but I always have thought it's wise to consider the possibility of rejection from the App Store. I own an Android phone, so I'm clearly biased, but it always seemed slightly ridiculous to develop for a platform where there's a chance of being arbitrarily rejected. There have been far too many stories of decent applications being rejected from the app store. Do you really want to take the chance of coding it for nothing?

</comment><comment><USER8> Platform debates aside, I think the easy answer is to follow the money.

iPhone users have a track record of spending money - the iTunes App store is a huge success. I have seen more stories of iPhone developers making scads of money than I have for Android. Having said that, that is a catch-22. The successes represent around 1% of all of the apps in the store.

The one emerging problem with the iTunes App store, however, is discoverability. It is damned hard to get discovered within the iTunes App store. Clearly to be successful, you have to get a lot of good buzz outside of the App store.

</comment><comment> developer-down The experience is very telling, and at the moment it's a no-brainer - iPhone, and it will reign for a long time yet. If you want to develop for Android you're probably better on custom apps / devices (tablets, specialized apps) as an employee rather than as an independent app developer.

The market demographics are very different - Android : 3/4 male, purchase apps 1/2 as often as iPhone users. iPhone users, around 50/50 male/female, affluent (as Android comes with cheaper devices the owners of those devices probably aren't using the platform the same way as iPhone users do).

Obsolete platform hardware/software - this is huge. Most existing Android phones won't ever get an upgrade to 2.x Android OS. Therefore to reach the market, you need to make it backwards compatible with the 1.x, which is a PITA.

Apple has only just announced that their next OS won't work on original iPhone (2G). This is a massive difference. You have been able to build for the latest OS for all iPhone devices for 3 years. Contrast this to Android - some devices released in the last 6-12 months won't run software built against latest Android OS.

Flash - this is big and I believe it will push prices lower in the Android app store. There has already been a "race to the bottom" in some categories (e.g. games, think 99c variety) in the iPhone App store. iPhone users will pay for games that you can play in a browser on a late-model Android phone for free. Therefore there's less incentive to pay for these games on Android devices.

Discoverability will always be a problem for any platform.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm an Android handset owner, and I'm considering expanding my skills to develop for Android.

My answer is that it depends. If Apple don't object to your app or business model, then the iPhone is probably the better bet, for now, and until and unless the number of Android handsets greatly outnumber iPhones (i.e. even with a lower customer conversion rate, the absolute numbers then tip in favour of Android).

Factors that limit the money available to Android app developers include a) lots of free apps to choose from; paid apps need to offer something special - even many trivial apps for iPhone seem to be paid b) handset manufacturers' lack of co-operation with Google in getting their firmware releases approved by Google for copy-protected Market apps makes it more likely that potential customers will just download illegal copies of your app because it's actually easier than buying it. Fail.

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe try to build for both platforms? There are a lot of interesting options in that way. Titanium Mobile from Appcelerator (<http://www.appcelerator.com/>) lets you compile one application to Android and iPhone os. Also, MonoTouch is a software to make iPhone apps using C# (if you're used to C# it might be faster than learning objective-c) and the Novell team are currently working on MonoDroid for Android phones. (<http://monotouch.net/>)

<comment><USER11> Anyone has any reviews about Titanium Mobile?

Any hooks? They seem to ask for a signup to create an app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Short term definitely the iPhone, longer term probably the android.

</comment><comment><USER13> I work for a small software company that makes iPhone and Android applications. From what I understand we make much more from the iPhone apps. I'm not exactly sure why this is, but I think the store is just set up in a way that favors free apps. Also the Android store allows for VERY easy refunds.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just a minor advice. If you do it mostly for the money, you won't be near as successful as if you do it because you are passionated about it.

Someone had to say this :P

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't want to be "this guy", but if you have an idea capable of producing revenue and the execution and marketing skills to put it into peoples hands; there's no reason you shouldn't be able to release it to both platforms.

It sounds like your after "code a weekend and get paid millions". Which is a statistically non-existent market on either of the platforms.

<comment><USER12> > It sounds like your after "code a weekend and get paid millions".

What gave you that impression? Or has the submission been edited?

<comment><USER16> The fact that he thinks it's a one-or-the-other choice. My employer has an iPhone, an Android and a BlackBerry app. My personal project (Phonalyzr) is available in both Android and BlackBerry flavours (no iPhone due to SDK restrictions).

All three platforms have pretty big market shares, focusing on one exclusively seems like bad business.

<comment><USER12> If he's just the one guy he might already be swamped by supporting one major application for one platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> depends on the kind of app?</comment>


The Importance of Apple - <AUTHOR> http://cycle-gap.blogspot.com/2008/06/importance-of-apple.html

<comment><USER2> Well, NeXTSTep had DBKit which had an Oracle adaptor, there's no reason Apple couldn't have great native Oracle support very quickly if they needed it.

There's JDBC thin and Instant Client too. There's even a version of the Oracle server itself, but it's a few revs behind and not supported for Production use. If you wanted to write an Oracle app on OSX today, there's nothing stopping you.

<comment><USER3> The Oracle client libraries (in both traditional and "Instant" variants) for OS X on Intel weren't released until spring of '08. That was nearly a two-year wait relative to when many, if not most, developers using Apple hardware had moved over to the new hardware.

So yes, technically, there's nothing stopping you from writing an Oracle-based app on OS X _today_ , but the story was quite different just a few months ago.

Also, while CoreData may have taken a lot of the nicer bits of WebObjects' ORM tier and re-packaged it for desktop apps using SQLite, the story for traditional client/server database applications isn't quite so compelling. RubyCocoa + ActiveRecord (or your preferred scripting language w/ORM and Cocoa bridge) actually seems like a much better option than bare Cocoa + Oracle C client libs.</comment></comment>


Archiving URLs - <AUTHOR> https://www.gwern.net/Archiving-URLs <comment><USER2> One use case of archiving is for legal reasons, we had a case where we archived stolen JS code and used it in a lawsuit.</comment>


FOAF – Friend-of-a-friend - <AUTHOR> http://www.foaf-project.org <comment><AUTHOR> An ahead-of-its-time idea about the distributed web and the idea of open data. See [http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/](http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web) for more high-level details</comment>


Ask HN: Conv. rate on LP increased from 2% to 9.5%, how to increase it further? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,
After receiving first doze of feedback from HN community and looking at our data we've realised that our landing page was confusing. The conversion to email submission was just 2,5%.
Here is how landing page used to look before(we've mostly changed the top of the page): http://betalist.com/startups/staply
Then we've followed the advice and used simpler terms/words. Conversion rate increased to 9,5%. That is how our landing looks now: https://staply.co
We are currently working on the testimonials, but what else you would you suggest to improve the conversion of that landing page? <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable links: 1 [http://betalist.com/startups/staply](http://betalist.com/startups/staply) 2 [https://staply.co](https://staply.co)</comment>


I'm 50, can I find a computer job? Some Elixir for getting Agile or Lean? - <AUTHOR> One thing I can say in my favour is that I'm a deep thinker, I try to understand and grok what is needed.  What kind of computer related job would benefit from a deep thinker?,<p>How could I sell or promote this ability? <comment><USER2> I would say that all programming requires deep thinking. Do you know how to program? If not why not?

If you don't want to program you could try become a business analyst. They also require deep thinking about the business, it's needs, it's data and it's systems.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank for your opinion, just out of curiosity I was reading about the 28 questions you have posted on HN to try to guess what kind of job you do. The questions are so general that I can only imagine someone trying to learn but not specialized in anything.

I can program in many languages and I have a steady job (math associated professor with tenure in Spain).

Sometimes I think I could try to use my computer skills to create something valuable. Perhaps something related to machine learning.

<comment><USER3> Seeing that you are gainfully employed in academia and with expertise in an unspecified area related to math (the vague description makes it hard to make good suggestions) I would think that you could explore commercialisation projects related to engineering, bio-engineering, etc. That is, areas that could use both your deep thinking and math abilities and open the door to industry without jumping the academic ship before there is a viable new avenue. From what I have seen both Barcelona and Madrid universities have some excellent research which might be ripe for commercialisation. Of course, you should probably explore potential projects with other universities. Academia - Industry collaborations with a view to commercialisation generally needs entrepreneurial input.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a Math Professor, I think you would best fit in a Machine learning/Data scientist role in any tech company.

It's where Most people of your demographic (I can think) of are.

Its also one of the most difficult fields in tech, so your "deep thinking" is an obvious advantage.

How to promote/sell your ability?

I advise you to may be get into the industry (also learn some python) [http://www.deeplearningbook.org/](http://www.deeplearningbook.org/)

Write some papers on your orginal thoughts/ideas and publish them on the [http://arxiv.org](http://arxiv.org)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm 44 and Elixir is a fine choice to start work in, although it's still a small (but growing) market. One possible impediment (for me as well) is subtle age bias- A lot of Elixir folks are really young (relative to us).

If you're great at math/linear algebra, an online certificate from one of the machine learning classes out there would probably help get your foot in the door somewhere!

</comment><comment><USER6> * Solution Architect would require deep thinking.

* Research Jobs. Microsoft Research for example.

* PhD - you may get some living allowance, which will allow you to 'survive" if you have no mortgage or family to support.

If you want to think deep then choose carefully who you work for. If they need to "move fast and break things" then you may not get the chance to think deep.

</comment><comment><USER7> Thinker with an experience and knowledge in particular domain may be a very valuable employee as a visionary. Sorry, maybe it sounds very tough, but probably you haven't any chance to find a computer job at that age if you never worked in that industry before. And anyway good luck in your journey!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for your opinion. I see that you recommended the book [https://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Power-Science-Personal- Achi...](https://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Power-Science-Personal- Achievement/dp/0684845776/) , I will try to read it.

Good luck with your FB-messenger app.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, the book is great! Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> To be brutally honest, waiting for feedback stole my needed snap for deep thinking.

<comment><USER8> To be brutally honest, you may have illustrated your own problem. I'm in my mid 50s and have always, always studied hard for my next job. I strongly suggest you either work diligently on someone else's project on GitHub or you create and publish something important to you, even if you might not get paid for it. The simple fact is, we old guys are like women or blacks--we have to be better than the average candidate to get the same consideration. Not a nice situation, but it's always been true. I have known this for 30 years and have been preparing ever since.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that is a very good advice. Quoting Louis Pasteur Chance favors only the prepared mind. I wish you the best with your auction enterprise.

<comment><USER8> You're brave and took some harsh criticism well. My auction enterprise has done very, very well since I purchased it in late 2000--but I still prepare for failure every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Depending on your background, you could get into Data Science.

<comment><AUTHOR> Recently I was reading your programmingzen blog, I think that elixir can be a good replacement for ruby and rails.

<comment><USER9> Thank you for reading it. Feel free to email me with questions as you go through the process of moving into a career in computing.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple Rumored to Be Debuting iMessage for Android at WWDC - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2016/06/09/apple-imessage-for-android-wwdc/ <comment><USER2> Interesting...I've always found iMessage to be the single most compelling argument for iOS.

</comment><comment><USER3> How do these large companies keep everything so secret (apart from "lost" prototypes)?

I'd think the press would acquire a trusty insider over the years. Alone keeping your work secret from your family would be difficult. Also I often hear "we people in the field knew for month/years" and wonder why nobody asked them before or if they just became so sure about something after the fact that it happened :)

<comment><USER4> They leak fake secrets to suspected leakers and fire them if they show up in the news.

<comment><USER3> That only works to some extend. You'd need a different story for each suspected leaker and you can't fake what people are actually working on.

One strategy would be to subdivide Tasks in to small enough segments that you don't know what the big thing is you are actually working on. But this lack of overview might be very hindering/expensive.</comment></comment></comment>


100% Uptime* - <AUTHOR> https://levlaz.org/100-uptime/ <comment><USER2> While I actually receive the same emails (today my LA machine will be rebooted at 11am UTC, like yours) and I hate it- they're correct in that they are following SLA.

SLA only covers things outside of maintenance windows. Normally this is fine because you can have a conversation about when the maintenance is; and get prepared for it.

This is not the case with vultr. They're more of the "do as you please" style of management, and they don't directly peer with any ISP- so.. not ideal for many people.

If you have the coin then I recommend joyent. But VPS's are an industry that are racing to the bottom and it's hard to justify the cost of $60/mo for something you can get for $5/mo with occasional outages and networking problems.

 _shrug_ You get what you pay for.

<comment><AUTHOR> > \shrug\ You get what you pay for.

Totally.

> SLA only covers things outside of maintenance windows.

Meh... I would disagree with that. If you are going to say you have a 100% SLA then to me that means that you have already solved the "maintenance window" problem. Every other VPS provider has a 99.999% uptime SLA specifically to address the maintenance window issue.

I realize that 100% uptime is not a thing, I am just annoyed that they advertise it.

> If you have the coin then I recommend joyent. But VPS's are an industry that > are racing to the bottom and it's hard to justify the cost of $60/mo for > something you can get for $5/mo with occasional outages and networking > problems.

Thanks for the recommendation. Race to the bottom for sure. If the services hosted on my VPS actually mattered then I would not have a single point of failure :D</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best place to find high paying freelance projects? - <AUTHOR>

I'm employed full time but would like to find a high paying freelance project, to make some extra cash during March. I'm an experienced Full Stack Developer, with a 1st class honours degree in Web Application Development and about 8-10 years of non stop development experience (2-3 yrs industry, the rest my own projects).
I've tried sites like elance and peopleperhour but it always seems that developers from the Philippines, Russia, India etc will always be willing to work for less, thus out-bidding me.
I'm wondering where the best place is to get a decent gig if you're located in the UK like me? Where can I find freelance clients who want high quality code, rather than a cheaper outsourced product? <comment><USER2> If a person is lucky, good freelancing work just falls in their lap. Ordinary humans, on the other hand, have to hunt well paying contracts down. Most of the work of freelancing is identifying good clients, being there when the client has work that can be handled by a contractor, and closing the deal successfully. The work itself is often the easy part.

Developing leads means making contact with many busy people. Those people need to be busy with work that pays well enough that they can pay you well. A good source of that sort of work is well established contractors/freelancers/consultants/agencies because they take projects that pay well and this means there is likely to be meat on the bone when they use outside workers. The will take on outside help when they have more work than they can handle, and good consultants often do.

The rest of the world of freelancers is racing toward the bottom in pursuit of clients who want to pay zero dollars.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> The best place is probably going to be your existing network. You know, the people that know your work ethic and the quality of your work. Past employers and past co-workers have contributed a big chunk of my projects.

</comment><comment><USER4> What about [http://letsworkshop.com](http://letsworkshop.com) \- they have a minimum budget in place so that cuts out the low end immediately.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a look and they sent me some leads pretty quickly, annoyingly the majority were technologies I don't have experience with or were for designers. Do you know if theres any way of filtering out what doesn't suit your skill set?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You could take a look at gun.io [https://gun.io/](https://gun.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just waiting for my application to be approved, looks promising though!

Any idea how long this process typically takes?</comment></comment>


Hover.com DNS is mostly down - <AUTHOR> http://hoverstatus.com <comment><USER2> This isn't the first time I've been impacted by an outage of theirs.

Does anyone recommend an alternative?</comment>


Spotify in Talks to Buy Gimlet Media - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-in-talks-to-buy-gimlet-media-11549062083 <comment><USER2> If Gimlet media starts putting all of their podcasts only on Spotify they will lose me as a listener.

Otherwise, I'll be really happy for Gimlet. I've listen to Startup since day one.

<comment><USER3> Theoretically I am sympathetic, but in reality I have 3 different podcast apps:

1\. Overcast, great usability, terrible discoverability

2\. Apple Podcast, bad usability, excellent discoverability

3\. Spotify, ok usability, ok discoverability

The reason I have not unified on any one is these different trade offs and the low burden to having 3 different podcast apps. I only use Spotify for the Fantasy Footballers podcast and I can see myself unifying on Spotify if they became the sole distributor of a couple of casts I follow.

Which is to say, in practice, I do not share your conviction.

<comment><USER4> Intriguingly, I've found more good podcasts through Overcast recently than almost anywhere else.. via their _ads_ which are so high quality and well targeted that they work as a discovery mechanism.

<comment><USER2> I was actually going to pay for a subscription to Overcast even though you really got no benefits from it just to support a great product.

Then he introduced ads and his custom built ad platform was so good that I think of them as a feature that I would keep on anyway and he's making money.

<comment><USER5> I'm a subscriber and I keep the ads on. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks like Spotify is going the Netflix way, becoming a content creator. I wonder if that means they will try to create music as well. They sure have the data.

<comment><USER7> Absolutely, signing artists and acting as their label and main (exclusive?) distributor could work out pretty well for them.

<comment><USER8> To me, this seems like a promisingly model for podcasters once startup mattresses, meal delivery services, etc, get tired of advertising with them. Patreon doesn't work for smaller ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a listerne og the Starup podcast almost since the begining that would be such a wonderful "end" to the tale. "And they bought by a giant and everyone lived happily ever after". Also from a Historical point of view it's such a great line of podcasts chronicaling first hand the actual struggles from inception to exit.

</comment><comment><USER10> Gimlet has only done two rounds of raising haven't they? What kind of valuation do you think they would be chasing?

<comment><USER10> Apparently $230M [https://twitter.com/nwquah/status/1091496410392875008?s=19](https://twitter.com/nwquah/status/1091496410392875008?s=19)

<comment><USER10> Done a few more rounds than I realised. [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gimlet- media#section...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gimlet- media#section-funding-rounds)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Looks like Outline doesn't work for WSJ anymore. Does anyone have a non- paywall link? I'm unwilling to pay for the Wall Street Journal.

<comment><USER2> Just change wsj to fullwsj...

[https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/spotify-in-talks-to-buy- gim...](https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/spotify-in-talks-to-buy-gimlet- media-11549062083)

<comment><USER12> It did not work for me...paywall is still there :-(</comment></comment></comment>


Demonoid returns, website now back online - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-back-140330/

<comment><USER2> Yesterday was down, but now I see its up.</comment>