Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac - <AUTHOR> https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/apple-ends-epics-ability-to-offer-fortnite-save-the-world-on-mac <comment><USER2> This is almost certainly due to their developer account being blocked, so it's not like Epic is fully innocent here.

But what they are doing is brilliant, because they have just demonstrated that their perceived infringement of the iOS rules has caused them to also lose Mac developer access, presumably due to it being the same account. But legally, the iOS and the Mac developer agreements are separate contracts. So from a legal standpoint, Apple has reacted to a perceived infringement in one contract by retaliating in a legally unrelated contract. That might be illegal.

And in addition, Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway.

I'm curious to see how this will mix with Apple silicon, which will effectively make running a stock Windows impossible. So in the future, you'll need to choose when buying your hardware if you want phone-quality games on Mac or triple A on PC.

I predict that the market segment of casual players using Apple hardware but Windows Bootcamp will now be driven away from Apple. In my opinion, the only way to avoid that would have been for Apple to demonstrate excellent UE5 performance on Apple silicon, but that now surely won't happen.

<comment><USER3> > This is almost certainly due to their developer account being blocked, so > it's not like Epic is fully innocent here.

It looks more and more like Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.

Arguably the reaction should have stopped at pulling Fortnite out of the store. If extra steps were really needed, forcing suppression of Fortnite from existing iOS devices could have been accepted as a related measure.

But blocking the whole developper account is so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.

It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.

<comment><USER4> > It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. > I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.

What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?

<comment><USER5> > _but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run?_

Of course it does. People like myself see the overreach Apple has taken with their platforms and hardware, and as a result, I'm not going to rest the viability of my business on Apple's whims.

<comment><USER6> The iPhone market is still huge and valuable. It's too much money to leave on the table if you're an app developer. You're still going to build an IPhone app you're just going to be more careful about it.

<comment><USER7> The endless HN swing between:

\- iOS is too important for developers to abandon, so it's not like people are actually going to stop developing games for it.

and

\- Antitrust claims aren't valid against iOS because developers can just choose to move to Android instead.

\----

All that aside, the important thing here is that Apple is now retaliating on the _Mac_ , not just on iPhone. I was already never going to waste my time building mobile games, in part because of iOS. So anything Apple does there doesn't really change the status quo. But I'm increasingly looking at the current situation and saying, "does it make more sense for my future games to just be Windows/Linux?"

And while they do arguably have a big enough hold on the mobile market to force mobile devs to support iOS, Apple definitely does not have a big enough hold on the desktop gaming market to force developers to target Mac. They could go from being pretty under-represented as a gaming platform back to being completely unrepresented if they're not careful.

If AAA studios, special effects teams, and producers have to choose between abandoning Unreal Engine or abandoning Mac, I don't think it's safe to assume they're going to choose to abandon Unreal Engine. There are massive pipelines invested into this thing, for better or worse.

<comment><USER8> Hmm, interesting. There's two sorts of monopolies here right?

From the consumer side you can move from iOS to Android and vice versa relatively easily.

But from the developer side, despite having access to similar numbers of US consumers the Apple market is far more profitable and can't be abandoned.

Are monopolies measured from the perspective of third parties like that? The developers being the third parties here.

<comment><USER9> Apple has a monopoly on _the service of distributing iOS apps_. This is something that iOS/phone app developers need in order to conduct business, and which they are illegally (antitrust violations) being prevented from purchasing that service from anyone but Apple. No one (worth listening to) is claiming that Apple has a monopoly on _phones_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a user and developer, it's a little frustrating to see Apple try _so hard_ to ban an app that (like it or not) has real value to millions of people, while in the meantime allowing so much _trash_ to exist in their stores.

Sneaking code into Fortnite? Really? I could probably pull up 10 examples of sketchy apps in no time that clearly are doing things they shouldn't (and that's just the "weather").

Harm to Apple? I would argue that trash apps harm Apple considerably. For instance, I have effectively stopped even _looking_ for software on the Mac App Store, and the difficulty of searching/filtering has curtailed much of my activity on the iOS App Store too. I know for certain that if the average quality was higher and the search was _way_ better, I would be buying more. Shouldn't Apple care about things like that too?

<comment><USER11> Agree. Right now they are aggressively enforcing rules, but the rules are not producing a high quality bar.

Apple needs to decide if they want the App Store to be carefully curated like an Apple retail store, or broad like Amazon.com. Today they're squeezing the quality while ignoring the shit; it's so backwards.

It really feels like there's two teams with different priorities.

<comment><USER12> It makes perfect sense depending on how you look at it. If you look at it as a question of quality, and Apple wanting to keep a high bar for quality, it looks scatterbrained and ineffective. If you look at it as Apple trying to wring all the money they can out of the market, then it only makes sense for them to focus all their attention on the apps that are good enough to actually make money.

If Apple truly cared about keeping the quality high in their walled garden, and it wasn't just about extracting all the money they could, wouldn't they do _both_?

<comment><USER11> The "wring all the money out of the market" theory explains Hey and Fortnite, but not the many, many apps that receive arbitrary rejections, like this recent HN browser: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652)

This arbitrary friction of "what if the user searches for covid" is applied to useful software, but not Candy Crush clones. So naturally the store fills with shit. Even in the free app tier!

In some weird way, this shows it's not all about the money, since they're fighting to keep out the quality _free_ stuff too.

<comment><USER12> Well, who wants to pay for something when a good free alternative exists? And if people aren't paying, how is Apple going to get their 30%?

Free apps are only in Apple's interest as much as they think it makes people like their platform more. I think they care less about that then they used to, since there's so many different things pulling and pushing people to use iOS already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Honestly, people complain about the impact of FANG on the crushing effect on the market. The counter balance has always been the consumer good and innovation they provide -- but it's been a LONG time since we've since anything that isn't just incremental from Apple (others too - but not relevant here). Good on Epic and Tim S sticking hard to it. I hope they prevail.

<comment><USER14> You've positioned this argument to make everyone who could counter you sound like an Apple fanboy.

But let's be clear here: Apples "innovation" is usually around usability and accessibility.

Even with that said: the Apple Watch does not have an equal. It is the absolute king of smart watches.

Or we could mention that their CPUs (on mobile) are usually 2 generations ahead of other mobile devices.

You can fault them for many things, but they are innovating even if they oversell the little innovation they make.

<comment><USER15> I prefer the Garmin Fenix Sapphire to the Apple watch. I absolutely can't stand the 18 hour battery life. I actually laughed out loud during the Apple event when they mentioned you could monitor your blood oxygen levels while you were sleeping. How is a dead watch the next day usable?

<comment><USER16> I have an Apple Watch that I have been using for sleep tracking for the last 2 years. I use Sleep Cycle and charge my watch for 1 hour while I shower and get ready for work. I have never, in that 2 years, had a dead watch the next day. Since installing iOS 14, nothing has changed in that regard.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it's doable if you try or have a daily ritual. Camping trips or simply being away from home for a day, business travel and leaving the charger in a hotel etc, that constant upkeep is what keeps mine in the drawer. It would be much easier if it used the same lightning connector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The latest Fortnite for Mac installer was code signed and notarized 3 days ago, so this all seems very fishy to me.

[https://epicgames- download1.akamaized.net/Builds/UnrealEngin...](https://epicgames- download1.akamaized.net/Builds/UnrealEngineLauncher/Installers/Mac/EpicInstaller-10.18.8.dmg?launcherfilename=EpicInstaller-10.18.8-fortnite.dmg)

codesign -d -vv ~/Downloads/EpicInstaller-10.18.8-fortnite.dmg

It uses the Epic Games International certificate, which is protected by the court's temporary restraining order.

<comment><USER18> I believe that "Fortnite Save The World" and "Fortnite" are different things; is that the discrepancy?

<comment><USER19> They both run in the same game, but you get to choose which one to boot into once the game is open[0]. It doesn't launch another process, however to use it you do have to install optional game files[1].

0 : [https://i.judge.sh/fuzzy/Fleet/FortniteClient- Win64-Shipping...](https://i.judge.sh/fuzzy/Fleet/FortniteClient- Win64-Shipping_knERhmwVO5.jpg)

1: [https://i.judge.sh/caring/Dash/EpicGamesLauncher_e5xeoBNuA0....](https://i.judge.sh/caring/Dash/EpicGamesLauncher_e5xeoBNuA0.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What I find really interesting in this debate is how the same story can be spun two ways. Here, the headline is listed as "Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac" which is a word for word title from Epic's blog post. Fair enough.

The same story on Techmeme linked to an article about the blog post has the title "Epic says it will shut down Fortnite: Save the World on macOS on September 23rd".

Notice the tone shift from "Apple is shutting this down" to "Epic is shutting this down". I guess I don't really have a point here other than the title is not enough to draw a conclusion. Even reading a single source's take on a story is not enough context to draw a balanced conclusion. There is bias and nuance to every side and a healthy dose of skepticism is needed.

<comment><USER21> I think your general point is valid, but the first line of this is literally:

> Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on > Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World > for the platform.

If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.

<comment><USER22> Apple's argument is that Epic forced this action by violating their contract. Epic will respond that the contract is unfair and illegal, and Apple's treatment of different developers under the contract is inconsistent. It ends up being a conversation about who you favor in the Apple vs Epic fight, and not really a falsifiable factual question.

<comment><USER23> But did epic actually violate any part of their MacOS developer agreement, or just their iOS agreement? I've seen some conflicting information here that makes it seems as though Epic did nothing wrong on the MacOS side.

<comment><USER21> The Apple-defense being pushed here seems to be that all Apple agreements are one Apple agreement. Ie, if you have an issue with Apple in one are of business, that Apple-as-a-company can retaliate in any other area of business.

It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".

<comment><USER24> Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products.

The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.

<comment><USER21> Even if it is the "legal reality", Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy, but I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.

Google taking action like this (blocking accounts across their entire network of companies) comes up on HN every once in a while, and Google is always "the evil one". Apple is doing the same thing here but it's apparently more acceptable?

<comment><USER24> > Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one > vertical to control people's actions in other.

Again, that is your framing and doesn't take into account that maintaining independent contracts for each individual app would be incredibly impractical. Some developers have hundreds of apps in the app store. Are you really suggesting that if the developer commits a fraudulent act in a single app within a large portfolio of apps, that Apple should only be allowed to take action against that one specific app as opposed to banning the developer entirely?

> I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy

My point is that this is standard industry practice so framing it as something particularly evil that Apple has done is kind of silly. Look at Google's Play Store agreement, or Steam, or even Epic's own game store. The fact that all these different companies do things the same way indicates there's probably a valid reason for it.

> I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food > delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my > music or yoga apps.

As a consumer, no. But we're talking about two businesses here. If you commit fraud in your food delivery app why should Apple (or any company) be required to continue distributing your music or yoga apps? How do they know you won't do the exact same thing in your other apps?

This example isn't just hypothetical, it's a real issue in the Google Play Store. Malicious developers will build up a portfolio of apps, and then once the install base is large enough, begin to sneak malware into future releases of the apps. Google is constantly playing a whack-a-mole game against these developers. Imagine how much harder that game would be if they couldn't ban the developer and had to wait until malware was discovered in each individual app before they could ban that app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> With how horrible the trajectory of macOS has been due to Apple being almost exclusively an iOS profit driven company, this may be better for everyone by forcing consumers to move towards more open PC architectures.

<comment><USER26> Windows with store?

ChromeOS and Android with everything going through Google servers?

Linux distributions with their 2% market size, going to take over the desktop since DX 10 wasn't available in XP?

<comment><USER27> You mean the windows store with no relevancy that Noone distributes on anyway?

<comment><USER26> That is what many in HN like circles keep thinking, meanwhile I know of several Fortune 500 where that is the only distribution channel enabled by IT.

Windows 10X might not have been released as planned, but it will come.

<comment><USER28> > [...] meanwhile I know of several Fortune 500 where that is the only > distribution channel enabled by IT.

Can you name one?

<comment><USER26> NDA

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 20 years ago who would have thought that Apple would become the company that hides behind corporate talk about ToS and restricts what can run on their platforms, and Microsoft would become a company with many open source projects and an open platform?

<comment><USER30> > an open platform

Microsoft has an open platform?

<comment><USER31> > Microsoft has an open platform?

Compared to Apple?

Absolutely yes.

I can even run Linux transparently on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Apple's response looks very silly or childlike. I guess they want to pick a fight but I don't know what they have to gain from it. I pick Apple devices because they are easy to use. I don't play Fortnite but if this happened to any software I used on a weekly basis I would be pretty upset at Apple.

<comment><USER33> Apple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing video about it prepared day one. While people can debate the value of what is provided for 30% cut, intentionally breaking the rules / picking a fight has consequences that were laid out ahead of time.

<comment><USER34> Epic did not pick a fight. Apple did by introducing the 30% tax in the first place and then keep sticking with the 30% tax on everything when everyone have already realized that that tax is not normal.

<comment><USER35> Again, how much does playstation, xbox, steam and google play charge?

<comment><USER36> Steam goes down to 20%

[https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/1697191267930157838)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What an odd thing for Epic to announce.

Save the World has already been announced as receiving no further gameplay updates. In other words, the game is just as much of a zombified husk as the mobs you're asked to kill in it.

Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.

<comment><USER38> > Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with > Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.

Well, it is. They're in a PR battle with Apple. And weirdly this massively rich company that is complaining about not having enough money is actually considered right by a lot of folk. What they're complaining about is pretty much agreed by everyone, the only things that differ is if Apple's wall garden is a good thing or a bad thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's worth noting that Apple in their latest legal filing ([https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265...](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.73.0.pdf)) has made a fairly aggressive argument asking the judge to allow them to terminate Epic's international developer account which is used to develop Unreal Engine. The argument is based primarily on two factors:

1\. Epic snuck hidden code into Fortnite. Apple no longer trusts that Epic won't also sneak hidden code into Unreal Engine.

2\. Epic International is apparently collecting the payments from international iOS users that are using the hidden payment system in Fortnite, so it is directly linked to the breaching conduct.

So there's still a very real risk that Epic will lose access to the developer tools and signing capabilities for its Unreal Engine business as well.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's interesting to note that Epic managed for a short while to get behavior into their app on people's iphones.

Apple doesn't instrument apps, malware can be uploaded to the app store and as long as it's not widely known can exist for a while. The app store provides little benefit for consumers and only moves power from them to Apple.

<comment><USER40> How would you propose that Apple "instrument" apps to prevent Epic from pushing a server side change?

<comment><USER41> They can't, and that's the whole point. The security comes from the sandbox, not from the review process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is a good example of why everyone should oppose code signing requirements. Users should be able to easily run any code they want on their system. No one should be able to prevent me from running something I choose to run.

And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally obfuscated how to do it.

<comment><USER43> > And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally > obfuscated how to do it.

It's literally right click on the .app and click 'Open'. Or alternatively, open up the security settings and click the 'Open Anyway' button.

\---

Certainly not ideal for developers who do regularly open up unsigned binaries, but you have to admit it's probably somewhat effective at preventing malware for non-developers.

<comment> aero-glide Off topic, but is there a way to sideload like that on iOS without jailbreak?

<comment><USER44> If it's open source, then just compile it in Xcode and sign it with your personal Apple ID. You don't need a developer account or anything. You will have to resign it every seven days, although you can automate this process with something like AltStore.

<comment><USER45> So, now you need a mac.

Also do you realize how absurd the whole process sounds? If I want to install an app from an independent source I shouldn't be required to go through those steps, assuming the app is open source in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't get it, isn't it still possible for everyone to "sideload" Fortnite onto their Mac without it being signed? Why is Epic stopping development instead of just offering the update?

<comment><USER47> On macOS there are 3 tiers: AppStore, Developer Id, and "This is malware, move it to Trash". Apple has blocked the first two.

The third one has a workaround, but it's intentionally designed to be semi- hidden and confusing to an average person. I expect HN crowd to think it's not a problem, but to me as a developer it's a support headache, and embarrassment to tell every user "yeah, no, we're not malware, please do these steps to bypass all these scary security warnings".

All Macs have shitty GPUs, so Epic may even be happy they have a good excuse to drop Mac.

<comment><USER48> Eh, Fortnite runs on nearly all types of machines. It's designed to be playable on even potato level machines (that is part of its appeal and reach, see: League of Legends as well)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Pre Tim Cook, Apple just out-innovated, not strong armed. Terrible. I really wish they were an alternative to Facebook/Google.

<comment><USER40> Because the Watch, the AirPods, are nothing - even though they both make more in revenue than the iPods at peak.

The iPad is much better than the pre-Cook iPad 2.

Apple's processor lines are head and shoulders above the competition and the ARM Macs will probably be some combination of faster, cheaper, more power efficient than any x86 PC.

And then we have Epic.

Selling Carlton Dances with virtual currency.

<comment><USER26> The problem are all those GNU/Linux users that bought into Apple's ecosystem because UNIX without being really part of the Apple eco-system culture.

Now they complain, well should have spent money supporting GNU/Linux OEMs instead.

Same applies to Epic, fine with console restrictions, thinking that they can play their weight everywhere Tim feels like it.

<comment><USER50> Linux user here, bold of you to assume that my workplace gave me any kind of choice in the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Well, doesn't seem like any _additional action_ has taken place... it's just an effect of revoking the developer ids used previously.

I wonder if they can just distribute the game as an unsigned binary from their website, post the SHA and tell uses to right-click launch the app. Sure the experience sucks, but it works

<comment><USER52> Agreed, Apple wouldn't really have any recourse here except to (long-shot) add Fortnite to the XProtect, which would be beyond extreme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I don't understand why Epic isn't releasing unsigned builds for Mac. Allowing an app through Gatekeeper is not any more difficult than sideloading an APK, and Epic seems perfectly happy to guide users through the latter.

<comment><USER29> Epic admitted that their side-loading on Android didn't work for their customers when Epic put Fortnite on the Google Play Store. They tried to make it as easy as possible and still couldn't get enough users to do it.

<comment><USER54> It could hardly be easier to do, just click the apk link and agree to the dialog box. The problem seems to be just that noone is looking for an app outside of the app stores.

<comment><USER55> One minor counter-example: to enable third-party apps on my Android-supporting Chromebook, I had to go through considerable contortions (1). It was not as easy as it is on typical Android devices.

1: Install Linux sub-system, install android-tools, wget the apk, and adb install it on the same host. Now I get a warning on the login page about 'unapproved apps'. It is not great.

<comment><USER53> Wait, WTF? You have to install the entire Linux subsystem to sideload APKs on a Chromebook that officially supports Android apps?

This is horrible!

I have a very clear line in the sand for this stuff. I don't mind Gatekeeper and SIP because if you know what you're doing, disabling them is painless, and you aren't punished for doing it. Disabling SIP doesn't add a constant watermark to the desktop, and the setting doesn't expire after a set amount of time or after updating. The OS says "okay, cool, you clearly know what you're doing so we'll get out of your way now," and I don't have to think about it again until I buy a new computer.

<comment><USER55> It was pretty bad - the Android sub-system does not seem to be available to external adb instances afaict. Also, this was a recent 'improvement': previous versions of ChromeOS required putting the device in dev mode to allow external apk installs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I haven't followed this much, except for my kid being bummed his game isn't being updated on his iPad.

Maybe I can use it as a teaching moment to explain why dad uses Linux.

</comment><comment><USER57> A quick story to illustrate why Apple will likely keep doing its thing despite Epic and any other criticism:

My neighbor has two young teenage sons who are into PC gaming, also Android tablets. They sometimes come to me with questions knowing that I'm in the industry. Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases. A good chunk was on Fortnite V-Bucks but also some SuperCell games. They were able to request a refund for more than half, and it was a stressfull event for the family with a lot of disciplinary actions following. I was asked for advice on about any technical solutions to the problem. I was able to suggest monitoring credit card charges in realtime, some parental controls that were rather painful to setup. Another touchy subject was how to talk to and educate their kids about online spending.

This incident highlighted how unregulated and seemingly dangerous the Windows and Android platforms are to an average non-technical family. You need to install AntiVirus software, you have to worry about malware, you have to worry about kids installing random crapware that bogs down performance (remember the IE toolbars?). I have to say Amazon and Xbox Live parental controls are some of the most kafkaesque nightmares I've had to battle with.

I also see predatory techniques aimed at kids that have long been used by companies that are primary funded by in-app purchases. There is widely discussed concept of fun-pain in this genre of game development, where you induce some level of "pain" that would induce someone to pay money to alleviate it. Simple example is to eliminate wait time for artificial delays in game progression. Yes, in some ways Apple and this entire genre of mobile games, profited from it and is now trying to provide alternatives with the Apple Arcade model.

In comparison Apple and iOS provides a walled utopia for these families and justifies its tight controls as a method of providing that safe and worry free computing experience.

How many people bought an iPad for their older relatives because they were just tired of family tech support? Seems like it was enough for that to become a tired stereotype with a grain of truth.

I have sympathies for the idea of an open computing platform as a developer. I see the web and open source an excellent outlet for those that are willing to take on that level of responsibility with their devices.

However most takes on Apple in response to the Epic spat have been crude caricatures of a capricious monopolist robber baron type. I'm not in complete opposition to that idea, but that its not a particularly sophisticated or informative analysis, when their success clearly shows a market need for just this type of curated platform.

Also Epic knowingly violated terms of a contract that they agreed to when it suited them and are painting it as a moral imperative as opposed to an argument over money and how to extract it from customers.

<comment><USER58> >Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases.

This sounds more of a parenting issue. How and why did the kids have access to the credit card info?

<comment><USER59> Locking down and/or outright refusing to enable purchases is one of the first steps taken when getting my kids new devices. The most recent setup of my daughter's new PC in Windows 10 was easier than it had been on iOS for her iPhone.

<comment><USER58> How and why does your kids devices have access to your credit card info?

<comment><USER57> I could give you a quick example but do you expect the answer to this repeated question changing the fact that this is a real issue for responsible and engaged parents?

I was going to write more details, but I don't feel comfortable recounting other people's personal details. I could anonymize it but that would make it sound contrived. As someone who's daily job is consulting and helping solve tough technical problems for non-technical clients, I feel for these parents being overwhelmed. I can see how the technology is not always on their side when considering the marketing towards their kids and the type of e-commerce dark patterns.

<comment><USER59> > I feel for these parents being overwhelmed.

I concur. I work with ACLs and permissions on a daily basis, my wife doesn't. This affinity for permissions structures rears it's head when she is entirely frustrated when setting up whitelisting for my daughter's MS account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder what the Fortnite user base and revenue looks like by platform

</comment><comment><USER60> This situation is very complex, but the outcome of the court case will have huge consequences. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets pushed around a couple courts for a year or two.

On the one hand, I think Epic's decision to flagrantly ignore the developer agreement in order to tease out a ban was a mistake. At the most basic level its going to cost them a ton of money, but its also become something of a red herring in the court case. It _may_ work to their favor, as Apple goes scorched earth on all of their properties and ability to develop on Apple platforms, but its a huge gambit that could just as easily end with them never being allowed back on an Apple platform. That won't benefit anyone.

Apple's side came out with a statement maybe yesterday which essentially outlined the insane amount of effort Apple went through to support Fortnite on iOS, including setting up a 24/7 support team, express reviewing dozens of updates, and sending engineers to North Carolina to help them integrate with Metal/Apple Silicon. That also doesn't come off good for Epic. The effort Apple put in may not be explicitly valued at the low-hundreds of millions of dollars Apple has made off of their 30% cut, but its also not worth nothing (and certainly worth more than the $100/year developers pay to have an Apple Developer account). It comes off like Epic wants all of the support, marketing, and customers Apple provides, then when its convenient for them, they sue for the ability to release their own store on iOS and bypass all the cuts Apple would take.

Additionally, Epic has chosen Apple as the target for this crusade, while they still gladly lay in bed with Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, _and_ actively cast Linux aside via refusing to support it in Fortnite/Epic Games Store, and even removing support for it in Rocket League. I'm firmly on the side that iOS needs a more open and equitable application ecosystem; whether that means alternate storefronts, or alternate payment processors, or lessened app submission rules, I don't know. But Epic is schizophrenic. Valve is a great example of a company that, excepting a few isolated releases that they likely treat as mistakes, actually does push for supporting open platforms in both word and deed. It can be done. But, again, this comes off like Epic wanting their cake and eating it too. Why does Epic still put up with PlayStation, despite they also taking 30% and disallowing alternate storefronts? Well, they probably negotiated a lower rate, and it doesn't hurt that Sony owns like 3% of Epic. So Apple argues that they don't negotiate, and everyone is charged the same rate? That doesn't look good for Epic.

But, on Apple's side: I can't in good faith trust their desire to get into TV, Music, and Gaming while still being fair in App Store policies. There are zero examples of megacorps having that much broad & specific control over the success of their competitors and not abusing it. Apple needs to lose this case, to some degree. There are billions of computer users totally beholden to Apple's policies, and tens of thousands of developers who can't just ignore those users and expect their business to survive. Would Spotify be ok without iOS? Netflix? Hey? I don't know, but while Epic will absolutely be fine, I suspect one click in an App Store administrative console could mean the end of many businesses. These businesses don't need App Store marketing. They don't need highly complex platform technologies, nor A22x Apple Hyper-Silicon, nor Apple Pay, nor anything differentiable Apple provides; they just need the eyes and ears of their customers, who _happened_ to pick iOS for reasons unrelated to their business. There should be a place for applications like these on iOS, which are fundamentally different from applications that are built to their core with Apple tech, rely on Apple marketing, the App Store's 70%, and legitimately gain a lot from the relationship with Apple.

</comment><comment><USER61> I ask myself if this is more an US vs. China issue (Epic is owned by a significant Chinese minority).

</comment><comment><USER62> Guys, is it just me or is the real crime here that people actually game on a Mac?!

</comment><comment><USER63> Gotta run up that damages bill

</comment><comment><USER64> So I initially was a fan of the idea of the Mac App Store for the same reason why I think an iOS is, for most people, necessary: sandboxing apps is just a good idea. So is standardizing installs, removals and updates.

Epic defied Apple's rules here, quite openly. Faced with dissension, from a political point of view you have a choice to make. Apple chose to come down hard on this rebellion. It immediately went nuclear, spilling over the Fortnite-on-iOS dispute into both Mac and iOS and for anything that runs Unreal Engine.

Apple is clearly trying to send a message and keep everyone in line with this strategy. This is straight out of the despot's playbook. Just look at Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. By taking down the biggest oligarch sent the message to the others saying "you aren't untouchable". I see Apple's move here in the same light. Apple is saying "we don't care how big Fortnite is; we're going to make an example out of you".

This strongly suggests to me that Apple fears rebellion..

I think this strategy is a huge mistake. Apple's arguments are pretty weak here too. "We don't know what Trojan Horses Epic will put into the Unreal Engine so we have to ban any use of it". Uh... sure. And while Epic's move was clearly against Apple's rules, it wasn't clandestine or malicious (to the users) either.

By attempting to ban any use of Unreal Engine on iOS and OSX, Apple is doing nothing more than demonstrating they're a monopoly and are capable (if not actually) engaging in anticompetitive behaviour.

I still think Apple's payment ecosystem (and 30% cut) actually makes a lot of sense for the bottom 90% of publishers. For the likes of Epic, Netflix, Unisoft, Activision, Hulu and the likes it doesn't. These guys all have their own payment infrastructure and are cross-platform.

Apple's stance on the 30% cut for these guys just doesn't make sense. And I don't think it will last. Either the cut will come down or exceptions will eventually be carved out for top-tier publishers.

</comment><comment><USER65> Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER66> Or maybe Epic is ending them? I think all they have to do is comply with the App Store policies and they'll be welcomed back.

<comment><USER67> It's literally Epic not wanting to comply with Apple's App Store policies and then crying that Apple is bullying them for not making an exception.

<comment><USER68> Certainly Epic is in a place that other Apple customers are not, in having the user base to profitably run a competing App Store. But I haven't heard any where that Epic wants an exception and fuck everyone else. Apple might do that if it shut Epic up, but they could also make TOS changes that made their customer relationships unilaterally less one-sided, and that would be less "exception" than "change". (at which point "crying" might better be described as "arguing" or even "protesting")

I don't particularly like either company here, but Apple using its market power to inhibit competition certainly sounds like the bigger problem.

<comment><USER69> > But I haven't heard any where that Epic wants an exception and fuck everyone > else.

Apple has made a few filings documenting this, including that Epic specifically asked for a side letter to the standard developer contract granting them special treatment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Its time to ban Epic vs The World posts. No value. They decided to break TOS, thats all there is.

<comment><USER71> or do apple's TOS break the laws? thats why there is a lawsuit about this

<comment><USER72> Until that lawsuit completes, isn't it reasonable for Apple to continue enforcing the existing contract?

Didn't Epic even file for an injunction to stop them doing exactly this, and were denied? (the court just prevented apple from also applying it to the engine)

<comment><USER69> I think it's reasonable, as long as Apple doesn't cause lasting harm. The problem is that Epic is cross-pollinating between multiple corporate entities, so separating everything out in a way that doesn't cause lasting harm (especially to third-party licensees) is going to be difficult.

\- Epic Games controls Fortnite

\- Epic SARL controls the Unreal Engine dev work on macOS/iOS

\- Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer- agreement infringing version of Fortnite

In an ideal world, Epic Games should be banned for the duration of the trial, Epic SARL should be ordered to direct all revenues from the infringing Fortnite version into an escrow account (or at least provide the court with ongoing accounting so the court can issue damages, if necessary), and Epic SARL should be allowed to continue operating as normal.

Separately, if Apple prevails in the court, Apple should be allowed to ban Epic SARL as well. If Epic marketed iOS publishing as a feature of their engine, it's Epic's responsibility to deliver that feature to their customers; Apple should only be responsible for allowing the customer to publish with an app that uses any engine, not the Unreal Engine specifically.

<comment><USER24> > \- Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer- > agreement infringing version of Fortnite

I think it's possible that the judge allows Apple to ban Epic SARL based on this alone. The original justification was that they were two separate entities and only one breached its agreement. If Epic SARL is making money from the infringing version of Fortnite then it's involved in the breaching conduct as well.

<comment><USER69> I should note on this -- _Apple_ is the one asserting that Epic SARL is accepting payments in one of its legal filings; Epic may yet provide evidence that it is not, in which case this situation becomes a lot clearer for the duration of the trial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Next time Epic will think twice about bullying platform owners.

Nope, they aren't special above anyone else.

<comment><USER27> I have a feeling Apple will come out far worse than epic when this is over.

<comment><USER35> Lawsuits have a way of ending up funny. AT&T sued UCB over BSD Unix, ended up having to admit they stole tons of shit from UCB.

That said, my prediction is that most of this lawsuit will be over contract law, and Apple has Epic over a barrel on that. Whether or not Epic should have to pay 30%, cloaking violating code changes in an update to slip it past the app store reviewers is a mortal sin under Apple's terms and they are perfectly within their rights to treat everything Epic does from now on as an unrepentant violator.

<comment><USER73> The lawsuit is only round 1. Providing a nice demonstration of apple abusing their market position could result in regulatory action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> A company has to make profit to support their tens of thousands of engineers. Google releases an enormous amount of products for free and gets the profit from advertisement and user data.

Apple on the other hand takes the cut from their products and software.

Somehow everyone seems to want things for free and never and keep the whole cake for themselves. Using any app store as a company is like renting renting selling space where customers browse. But the app store owner takes care of the maintenance so why wouldn't they get their cut for that?

</comment><comment><USER40> If Epic does win. Good luck at getting this level of support from Apple.

[https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic- games...](https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games- threats-revenue/)

 _As detailed by Grimm, Apple and Epic engineers over the past two years remained in "near-constant contact" to ensure that Fortnite could run optimally at all times and across a variety of devices. Grim notes that Apple provided Epic with a substantial amount of engineering support to "reduce Fortnite's memory footprint" which allowed it to run on older iPhone models.

In addition, Apple has also provided hardware to Epic, including 16 Apple Silicon Developer Transitions Kits across Epic's engineering organization, to ensure high-performance functioning of Unreal Engine 4 and the future Unreal Engine 5 on forthcoming Macintosh computers with new Apple silicon processors. This represents as much support as Apple provides to most any other developer. In addition, in response to repeated demands by Epic, Apple has permitted Epic to distribute builds on some 950 iPads and 1150 iPhones for app development and testing purposes— again, as much as Apple allocates to any other developer. These allowances are valuable to Epic as they magnify the company's ability to fine tune their apps and refine their products in advance of going live with users._

<comment><USER75> If apple is smart, they will continue to aggressively support companies that make highly demanded software for their ecosystem. Software is ultimately what motivates people to use a computer.

<comment><USER40> They can easily support, promote or even fund competitors to Epic. By the time this winds it's way through courts, people will have moved on anyway.

Besides, no one buys a Mac for its great game software or hardware.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Interactive Go Course Using WASM in Browser - <AUTHOR> https://classroom.qvault.io/ <comment><USER2> It would be nice if we could see what we're getting before having to provide an email address.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I'll work on the landing page this week. For more information immediately however, the main site is [https://qvault.io](https://qvault.io)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So you post the link taking you directly to the login page, but don't tell anyone that you can't even try out the Go course without buying 500 gems (costing $12)? You have to provide an email address before you even find out it costs money.

This seems VERY spammy to me.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you want to try out the editor without signing up you can do so here: [https://classroom.qvault.io/playground/go](https://classroom.qvault.io/playground/go)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Let me know if you have feedback/questions! This only recently went live and we are very much in a rampant iteration process.

<comment><USER4> Something to test the waters without having to signup would be nice. Seems like everything requires signing up and giving up emails these days.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. It's an instant no for me if I land on a sign up page with no context or content.</comment></comment></comment>


Append only development with React [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXuvCMG21Ss <comment><USER2> Interesting talk. Though how would you put Behavioral Programming in the context of Reactive Programming?</comment>


How to make sure nothing gets done at work - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/workplace-bureaucracy-simple-sabotage/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4831363](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4831363)</comment>


Ask HN: A is faster than B on GPU but vice versa on CPU - <AUTHOR>

Is there an example that:

    on CPU, Instruction A is faster than Instruction B
    However,
    on GPU, Instruction B is faster than Instruction A
    (Instructions are assumed to be math operations)
 <comment><USER2> There is a constant arms race between GPUs and CPUs to be faster. What is faster today on one, might be slower tomorrow.

GPUs are very good at doing lots of floating point math. Historically, CPUs have been better at dealing with branching, multiple instruction issue, out of order execution, integer math, and really pile on the cache architectures. CPUs have SIMD too so they are no slouch for lots of floating point calculations either.

Since memory (I/O) is now one of the largest bottlenecks for both GPUs and CPUs because memory bus speeds are much slower than both, this will often be your dominant factor. Since most of your data comes from main RAM, your CPU often lives closer to the data and tends to have aggressive cache architectures (L1, L2, L3 caches) to help, thus giving the CPU an advantage when data is not local.

I don't know if it still holds true, but NxM matrix math used to be faster on CPUs for very large values of N,M because for cache locality, the CPU had an easier time keeping values that needed to be reused in the matrices in cache. But GPUs tend to be really good at 4x4 matrices since that is what graphics primarily uses.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the question, as I don't know what "instruction" means in a portable way. AMD/Intel chips have instructions like LZCNT and CRC32, that don't exist as an instruction on R700-Family Instruction Set Architecture (nor other GPUs?).

Even if two functions do mostly the same thing (eg, multiply two floats), doesn't the Intel architecture have more complete support for the optional alternate exception handling of IEEE 754? If so, then they aren't really identical.

So, which instructions do you think are equivalent enough for your comparison?

Performance is driven by economics. Find where the economics between GPUs and CPUs are different, and you'll likely find where the performance inversion is.

</comment><comment><USER4> GPU's are parallel, which means they are better if you perform the same operation multiple times. GPU's also are better optimized for floating point arithmetic, but not always integer arithmetic.

This makes sense since GPU's are optimized to calculate graphic-related things, which is often a bunch of floating point operations.

</comment><comment><USER5> Disk I/O. The GPU would have to ask the CPU to do much of the work. I expect that in principle a storage controller can DMA into the GPU's VRAM, but I don't know that anyone actually does that. maybe for texture maps.</comment>


Rowing across the Atlantic (2017) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3barM5C7ecg <comment><AUTHOR> Map and photos here: [https://clem.travelmap.net](https://clem.travelmap.net)</comment>


Old School Likes Things Hard – Live with It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/97-things/old-school-likes-it-hard-live-with-it-81f99501e205 <comment><USER2> > Something I've come to realize after working with new and old school > developers: younger, junior developers tend to propose improvements to the > current design, and older, senior developers tend to reject them.

The article doesn't support this sweeping stereotype with even a single anecdote (not that a single anecdote would be very convincing). I guess we're just supposed to nod our heads and believe it. Call me "old school", but I prefer it when assertions are backed up by evidence.

</comment><comment><USER3> Call me old-school, but the improvements whippersnappers promote are, much more commonly, way too complicated for what they do. It takes a lot of work to make things simple, and they haven't done it.

There are plenty of what the author calls legacy systems, constructed by piling one new idea on top of another until the whole is near collapse. The young programmers who made it that way are now the old programmers trying to ward off collapse.

Read about the Lava Flow Anti-pattern: [http://antipatterns.com/lavaflow.htm](http://antipatterns.com/lavaflow.htm)</comment>


Concert shot on Chatroulette with 15 MacBooks [video] - <AUTHOR> http://intothewoods.tv/chatroulette/

<comment><USER2> Wow they suck</comment>


List of Jupyter Notebooks by Peter Norvig - <AUTHOR> http://norvig.com/ipython/README.html <comment><USER2> Lists usually don't make such great HN posts, since the discussion can only really go to the lowest common denominator of what the list items have in common, causing discussion to be generic, which is less interesting.

It's usually better to pick the most interesting item from the list and submit that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, thanks!</comment></comment>


iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/iPadSurfaceUltrabookAreWeThereYet.aspx

<comment><USER2> I recently tried an experiment in downsizing everything to an iPad. On one hand, an iPad + good keyboard cover (e.g. Zagg Keys Pro) makes for a very capable machine. You have to adopt a less schizophrenic workflow, but the basics are all there: e-mail correspondence, reading documents, light composition/editing of documents, etc.

On the other hand, it's not a super enjoyable platform for programming just yet. Emacs-ing into an AWS account works great, but the 10" isn't big enough for two buffers side-by-side. A 13" screen is just perfect for two 80x25 buffers.

I ended up getting an Air to supplement. It doesn't replace my iPad--reading and marking up PDF's (which I do a lot while researching cases) is just a joy on an iPad between the Retina display and touch manipulation.

This arrangement doesn't achieve the dream of consolidation, but: 1) together they're no heavier than my 13" MBP; 2) it's super handy to have the second screen.

I'm not thrilled about the combo devices. They all involve substantial compromises, which is why I assume Apple has stayed away so far. And as a practical matter, I think a 3 pound MBA + 1.5 pound iPad, with a combined 16+ hours of WiFi-enabled battery life, is more manageable in practice than a 3.5 pound convertible with 4-5 hours of battery life.

Out of the combo devices, I think the dockables actually have the most promise, though there isn't a good one yet. I'd love to see something like the Asus TF810C (dockable Clovertrail Windows 8 machine), except without the garish spun metal backing and with a Retina-class display: [http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/ThemeID...](http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/ThemeID.27509700/ASUS- VivoTab-TF810C-Tablet/productID.256540300).

</comment><comment><USER3> > Now that we can get 1080p resolution (or larger!) on a 13" or 11" screen > there's less reason to go large.

I've tried the 11" macbook air and simply couldn't get over the fact that the screen is too dense/ small. The ipad, or even the mini, are fine, but that's because apps are designed for low information density / large font sizes. Desktop OS's simply don't fit well on screens below 13" unless you have excellent vision, which I don't. Windows 8's solution of lowering information densities to cope with small screens is a non-solution, because the reason to use a proper laptop is to be productive, and productivity requires information density. I expect the tide to turn and screens to become larger again. 13" is the bare minimum for me.

> The touch keyboard on the iPad is excellent, really

Again, not for me. I can't type properly on it. I'm using it right now and not liking the experience. I agree that it is as good as touch keyboards are going to get, but that simply is not good enough. I'm glad the tide is shifting and people are realizing that a proper keyboard attached to a tablet makes sense.

<comment><USER4> Psh. We can get a 1080p screen on a 4" phone. Where's the retina air?

<comment><USER2> My prediction is that Haswell will free up enough power budget on the next MBA to fit in a Retina screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm using a Motorola Lapdock with an MK808 PC-on-a-stick right now to post this message. I'll never buy an Apple machine again; instead I'll just upgrade the PC-on-a-stick to something new, in a few months.

Everything my mega-Linux DAW workstation at home can do, this thing can now do. I don't need Apple; the ultra-light solution I can stash in my pocket, plug into my friends HDMI screen, or hook up to a lapdock, is all I need ..

<comment><USER6> Could you expand on this? Googling the mk808 it sounds like its a tv device.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I built a user-upgradable ultra-notebook out of an MK808 and the (strangely) discontinued Lapdock, for ~$150. Had to make a cable, though..

The MK808 is a TV device! But its also an Ubuntu workstation. It runs Android and Ubuntu.

I plug it into the Lapdock: oila, user-upgradable laptop. I plug it into the TV: oila, I can play games and movies and so on. Time to do a backup - plug it into a USB hub and the home server images the disk. Time to get a new one? Put the old one in a drawer as a backup, buy something else that fits in the Lapdock for ~$80.

I write software, and right now I'm working exclusively in MOAI, so building the MOAI host in Ubuntu on the MK808 was a matter of an hour of work, and beyond that - I have a full-blown Ubuntu workstation to work with. When I want to play, switch to Android and off we go ..

It is truly fabulous!

<comment><USER6> Sounds interesting. What is the speed of that thing, can it hand JS heavy webapps in a desktop browser properly?

<comment><USER5> 1.g5hz Quad-Core, 2gigs of RAM. Its not enough RAM .. if this catches on, I hope that mfr's will allow us to deck these things out with 16Gigs .. that'd be amazing.

<http://www.cloudsto.com/new-mk802iiis.html>

^^ nice, and cheap!

Also really nice:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/872297630/gamestick- the-...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/872297630/gamestick-the-most- portable-tv-games-console-ever)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Curious, no mention of the elephant in the room (Android).

<comment><USER8> > I've been blogging here for a decade and I stand on my reputation for being > fair and impartial to the best of my abilities.

 _ctrl + f "android"; none found. shrug. give up_

<comment><USER9> What if he's got no experience using Android and sensibly decided to make no comment on it?

This insistence on balance is getting tedious. Humans like something better than others, often with prejudice. When I see someone claiming about bias or a lack of balance I just read it as the have a different opinion and want to whine about it.

<comment><USER10> > This insistence on balance is getting tedious.

Balance? No, here I would insist on honesty. Had this guy been honest, he would have mentioned Android and maybe Ubuntu, at least to tell us he has not much experience with them. But as GP said: elephant in the room.

Can you imagine a guy talking in general terms about high-end cars, emphasizing proudly his "reputation for being fair and impartial", talked at lengths about Mercedes and Audi, and about Audi and Mercedes, and never even mentioning BMW?

Anyway, the Giant Mammoth in the room just shows how Microsoft fears Android much more than Apple, and rightly so.

<comment><USER11> Honest it was just because a rooted TouchSmart is a crappy Android tablet. You can decide that means my employer affects my blogging so that I ignore that "elephant" or you can read my detailed post on how to root your own TouchSmart. ;) [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToUpgradeAnHPTouchPadToAndr...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToUpgradeAnHPTouchPadToAndroidIceCreamSandwich.aspx)

<comment><USER10> Good to have you here. You said you are fair, let's see: do you think Android has some significant room in tablet space?

<comment><USER9> That's a loaded question if ever there was one!

<comment><USER10> Well, the GP writes a blog about future and tablets, has a self-declared "reputation for being fair and impartial"; why would he not reply to a common question as Android's room in tablet market?

<comment><USER12> The GP has already answered your question but I can't help asking what does this prove? If the GP said "no I honestly don't see a place for Android" would that make him less honest or bias? He may be wrong or right but I'm not sure how you could judge bias by the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > An Ultrabook (I have a generic) is a 11" or 13" laptop with a touch screen.

I don't think touch screens were a mandatory feature of ultrabooks. _shrug_

<comment><USER14> Personally speaking, I am not a fan of putting my fingers all over the display; I prefer having a clean screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hypothetically, if Apple were to allow the ability to run iOS/iPad apps within OS X, and put a touch screen on their laptops and desktops, would people use this?

This is basically what Windows has done with laptops and desktops with touch screens. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that it's weird and awkward.

<comment><USER16> Some degree of cross-pollination is desirable, at least in terms of usability for the average computer user. It would be a mistake to imagine that the particular limitations and constraints of either iOS or OS X as they exist today are global optimums.

<comment><USER15> I agree, and we do see plenty iOS feature appear in OSX and vice-versa (notification center for instance).

But it should be kept in mind that we are dealing with separate paradigms. The way one uses a tablet is very different from the way a laptop used, and software should be designed along these lines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "You eraserhead people are weird."

TrackPoint has been the most efficient way to get cursor around the screen. Touch interfaces are somewhat there but as per professional software development they are not. And so for other areas. Touch interfaces are inefficient, moving hands around is more difficult then fiddling with track point - as what we weirdos do.

Anyway. Its stupid. What you want doesn't matter, what is amazing will come and bite you and you will be surprised. Thats how it works. Period. "Or Revolution will not be televized" etc etc..

<comment><USER11> I hear you but if that were the case, wouldn't the iPad have a Trackpoint? Seems the TrackPoint will always be a niche, like the SpaceOrb - a superior controller, unquestionably, but still the one that lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> IMO the perfect tablet would be a full size ipad in the ipad mini form factor with a retina display

<comment><USER19> A full size iPad in the iPad mini form factor? I don't get what you mean; could you elaborate?

<comment><USER20> I'm guessing he means the screen resolution or DPI, but that's not really what "form factor" means so I'm not sure.

<comment><USER21> I think he's referring to the bezel. After using an ipad mini, the regular ipad just looks... thick.

<comment><USER12> Also, maybe, the thickness?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of the coolest things about Windows RT is that you have access to the filesystem like on any normal computer, and the integration with cloud filesystems like SkyDrive and Box.net. These are treated as just another drive and are available from the file picker. Dropbox isn't there yet but I imagine it is coming.

<comment><USER23> I fail to see how this is different from any Android tablet, except artificially crippled.

The Windows RT tablets will have the "desktop" mode, but refuse to run any desktop apps not shipped with the device. You can't compile a standard Windows-application for ARM, copy it over and have it run. That's a no go.

On Android-tablets, you can whip up a terminal and execute any binary you like, no matter where it came from.

You can compile Linux user-land tools for ARM and use them as you please. In fact somebody already did that job for you so you can just deploy them on your tablet.

I fail to see how Windows RT offers anything which haven't already been here for years.

<comment><USER22> Android doesn't have a file picker. I can't open Random App and open a file from the internal storage or cloud providers.

I'm not saying Windows RT is perfect or even that good, I'm just saying that this one particular thing, they got right.

<comment><USER23> _Android doesn't have a file picker._

Maybe stock doesn't, but install any file-manager from market, and voila you have just that.

<comment><USER22> File managers aren't file pickers. 3rd party apps do not integrate with them.

<comment><USER23> That is where you are wrong.

Just like gallery-app can be a file picker, so can a file manager be. Like cm's file manager is.

Or it can be something else entirely, like a dropbox frontend. You've just got to have a little bit more imagination ;)

In Android, 3rd parties don't need to integrate, the OS does it for them via intents. That's the number one thing which makes the OS so flexible and exciting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > _One day, someone will make the perfect computing device. Or will they? I'm > starting to think it's just not possible._

I agree with you that it's not possible, but not for any of the reasons that you listed in your sizable blog post. Most of the things that you listed could technically be combined into a single, extremely expensive device. But the reason it is not possible to make "the perfect computing device" is not technical, it's philosophical.

General-purpose computing devices have such a wide range of uses and every day humans are coming up with so many new ways to use such devices, that it does not make any sense to cram them all into a single "perfect" device. "Perfect" is relative. Perfect for whom? A Ruby programmer who likes to hang out at Starbucks? A graphic designer who juggles $10K worth of Adobe software? A photographer who backpacks around the world, often in rugged terrain? A scientist who needs a way to visualize the latest data from his particle accelerator?

Give me the most perfect Ultrabook that you can find, and I'll still complain that it doesn't come with multiple screens. Give me the most perfect tablet/keyboard combo that you can find, and I'll still complain that it only comes with 1 terabyte of storage. Or that the keyboard doesn't have a numpad. Or that I only get 30fps on my favorite game. Or that the pixels are too large. Or too small. Or whatever. Because anything you think is good enough to count as perfect will be seen as terribly deficient by a lot of other people who have different needs, and vice versa.

For a while, I hoped that the success of data sync tools such as Dropbox would make ideas like "the perfect computing device" irrelevant. Because people in wealthy countries would just buy several devices, from 27" desktops to 7" tablets to 11" ultrabooks to 3.5" iPhones, sync them all, and use whichever device suited their needs at the moment. It would be the combination of all of them and the way a person makes use of them that would be perfect, not any individual device. But it seems that some people are still looking for the One Device to Replace Them All.

<comment><USER25> agreed. but please apple, for the love of god, let me have a file system on ios devices! that would be. so. close... and i could just dock that to any workstation ( monitor,keyboard,speaker,etc) i wanted to. maybe ipads runing osx in "launchpad" mode? but with access to the desktop when docked?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> My favorite portable device right now is an MBA13 with an iPad (4) in the same bag. Use the iPad for reading long documents or very minor editing, and the MBA13 for everything else.

<comment><USER21> This is my setup as well, except I use an ipad mini. It's the best computing arrangement I've ever had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If a screen could be developed that could be adjusted to different sizes as needed, that would make a single unified computing device much more feasible.

</comment><comment><USER28> nope, going to take a while before the batteries catch up. 2014 was intels prediction. hopefully it'll be earlier than that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Are we there yet?

I know Hanselman is very sophisticated and tech savvy, but this is utterly naive. We won't be "there" for years and years, this is still just the beginning. I suspect that the computers that people use in 2030 will be more different from the computers of today than those of today are from those of 1996. There will be many familiar elements of course, from desktop, laptop, and mobile hardware and software, but there will be just as much that is unfamiliar to us today.

The system-on-a-chip based computer is as much a revolution as the cpu-on-a- chip "micro-computer" was, and this will result in people using computers in new ways, people owning and using computers who never have before, and an explosion of innovation in computer software and technology.

<comment><USER29> We're already there and we'll never be there. The goal posts never stop moving. The trick is to remember where you thought the goal posts were a few years ago and realize how awesome things are now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sorry, but there won't be a "perfect computer", if by perfect computer you understand the convergence of smartphones, tablets and laptops.

Smartphones are too small for a lot of tasks now, tablets are mostly used for consumption and when you're mostly static, not mobile, hybrids have a lot of compromises between weight, mobility, price, size, etc, and laptops will be mainly used for work. Plus, look at this trend - we've been using _more_ devices, not fewer.

If anything the ultimate computer will end up being the smartphone, because you have it all the time with you, if certain technologies make it a lot more flexible in what you can do with it in the future, like say holographic stuff. But by the time the smartphone can do that, we may see those technologies in totally new devices, like smart glasses or watches, or who knows.

If you look at the whole computing industry since mainframes until smartphones, we can see at least 3 trends that seem to always be true, with each new generation of "computing device". They are cheaper, smaller, and easier to use. So the next generation of computing devices, whatever that is, should also have those three attributes. And with each generation, we'll probably continue to use the past 2-3 generations for stuff the new one isn't very capable of, although less and less.</comment>


Informal HN Get-Together, Tokyo Japan - Friday 18th of March in Shibuya - <AUTHOR> http://blog.makeleaps.com/2011/03/informal-hn-get-together-tokyo-japan-friday-18th-of-march-in-shibuya/

<comment><USER2> I'm really looking forward to seeing all of you guys again. Sorry for the short notice… If you can't make it we'll have a real scheduled meet-up some time soon when things are more calm.

<comment><AUTHOR> Likewise - looking forward to seeing everyone there. Take care Tokyo people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have a prior commitment, but hope y'all have a fun time, and will see you at the next HN meetup.

</comment><comment><USER4> I discovered Hacker News very recently and so far I'm amazed at the quality of the community I've seen here. I'm not sure how I missed it as I've been reading PG's essays for years.

I just registered to say that I'll be at the get together later today.

<comment><USER2> Awesome. We'll see you there! Today I realized that we picked an Irish bar and its kinda close to St Patrick's day. Hopefully it's not too crowded/annoying. If so we'll think up a plan B and turn it into a bar crawl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will it be near the Shibuya Eggman Nuclear Reactor? --> [http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/16/fox-news-clueless- about...](http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/16/fox-news-clueless-about- japanese-nuclear-plants/)

<comment><USER2> Oh damn, I didn't even think of that, it's a short walk away. That would have been a good place! It's a live-house though so maybe not the best venue for a meet-up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never been to HN Get-Together before, but seems interesting. What do you guys do mostly? I kinda use Hacker News as a news source. In fact, this is the very first time I"ve commented.

<comment><AUTHOR> Welcome to the conversation!

If you're in Tokyo, I highly recommend dropping by to the next event. It's a really interesting group of people doing lots of interesting projects.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the replay. I work at Ebisu so it's really close.

I might be able to drop by since I think I can get out of work early.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Check out <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv> for the latest updates on the earthquakes. First time I've not had fun living in a tower building. I'm feeling every little bump.

<comment><USER7> I never considered it when choosing my apartment, but living on the first floor has been quite advantageousness over the last week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sadly I can't make it. Please have lots of fun, and see you all at one of the next events!

</comment><comment><USER9> I would love to go, but I do not want to stray too far from home when a strong aftershock might make it difficult to return. ;)

Have a great time, and I will be looking forward to the next one!

</comment><comment><USER10> Paul, I'll probably go.

Damn, it's shaking right now. Big one.

<comment><USER2> Right? We announce our intention to drink and the ground moves. I think it's a sign. Hopefully we'll see you there. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ok Paul, might be just you and me. I'm cool with that. :)

<comment><USER2> There's gotta be more nerds in Tokyo than just us… I think they've all turned off their computers to save energy for the blackout. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Unfortuantely, can't make it this time. Wish you all good time and catch you at the next event.

</comment><comment><USER12> Would be interested in the next scheduled one.

<comment><USER2> Follow our RSS feed or watch HN and you'll see the announcements. Otherwise send Jason or me an email (jason or paul @ makeleaps) and... oh shaking now again... ok I think it stopped... and we'll put you on the mailing list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Count me in.

</comment><comment><USER13> can't make it, but will raise a glass of ebisu silk from down here in kyushu.</comment>


Microsoft attacks Google Apps with "Google Tax" claim - <AUTHOR> http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-attacks-google-apps-with-google-tax-claim/

<comment><USER2> Microsoft probably has a good chance of winning this war, when you look at the amount of people who are completely unwilling to stop using Office in favor of docs for whatever reason. I know so many people like that.

Me, I stopped using Office over a year ago now. Pure google docs and that's it. I miss nothing.

<comment><USER3> Google Apps is a disruptive technology in the sense described in the book "The Innovator's Dilemma." Microsoft might not effectively complete with the disruption because Microsoft does not recognize the disruption, Microsoft continues to focus on maximizing profits in their current ecosystem or other reasons discussed in the book. Google Apps is capturing early adopters like you and it continues to improve. Microsoft might not win.

<comment><USER4> Microsoft does not recognize the disruption?

You obviously haven't heard of Office 365: [http://www.microsoft.com/en- ca/office365/small-business/abou...](http://www.microsoft.com/en- ca/office365/small-business/about.aspx)

I don't work for Microsoft but they have a lot of open positions for the Office 365 team which typically means they're investing heavily into it.

They most definitely recognize that they need to catch up. And very likely will.

<comment><USER3> I am aware of Office 365. Microsoft also invested heavily in the earlier NetDocs project, but that project was canceled.

I am sure that there are many people at Microsoft are aware of the disruption, but it's not clear to me that Microsoft as an organization has internalized it and is acting on it. For example, what is the product that Microsoft is selling? Are they selling a service to users or eye balls to advertisers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/Microsoft-Exchange- Server-2...](http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/Microsoft-Exchange- Server-2010-Standard-CAL-license/1911937.aspx)

$67.99 per person -- plus the cost of the software itself,and the hardware to run it on, and the IT people to deploy/maintain it.

<comment><USER6> Not having Google datamine your business records, Priceless.

<comment><USER7> Citation?

<comment><USER6> Google Apps terms of service: <http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/standard_terms.html>

See section on confidential information.

Note the differences between the free version and commercial version: <http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/premier_terms.html>

See also 1 & 2 of Google's privacy policy here: <http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/>

<comment><USER8> er, can you point to the actual datamining part? I'm not seeing it. I see

"The Recipient will only have a duty to protect Confidential Information disclosed to it by the Discloser: (1) if it is clearly and conspicuously marked as "confidential" or with a similar designation; (2) if it is identified by the Discloser as confidential and/or proprietary before, during, or promptly after presentation or communication; or (3) if it is disclosed in a manner in which the Discloser reasonably communicated, or the Recipient should reasonably have understood under the circumstances that the disclosure should be treated as confidential, whether or not the specific designation "confidential" or any similar designation is used."

and

"Recipient may disclose Confidential Information solely as needed to comply with a court order, subpoena, or other government demand (provided that Recipient first used all commercially reasonable efforts to notify Discloser and to give Discloser the opportunity to challenge such court order, subpoena, or government demand except in situations where Recipient is prevented, per lawful government request, from disclosing the existence of the court order, subpoena, or other government demand)."

and

"Each party acknowledges that damages for improper disclosure of Confidential Information may be irreparable; therefore, the injured party is entitled to seek equitable relief, including temporary restraining order(s) or preliminary or permanent injunction, in addition to all other remedies, for any violation or threatened violation of this Section 8. A Recipient shall have a duty to protect Confidential Information during the term of this Agreement and for a period of five (5) years thereafter."

<comment><USER6> How many gmail users would you estimate actually identify each of their emails as confidential? Or docs users?

I suspect it is a very low percentage and in contrast the paid version requires Google to treat the customer's documents as if they were Google's own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Google Docs is extremely frustrating. It has such potential, but it's such a hack-job, and Google doesn't seem particularly interested in making it less so. It certainly shows that the apps were acquired and patched together, because document organization is putrid, and even search doesn't work effectively.

<comment><USER10> Yep, it was much more attractive when it was a bunch of quaint little silos, which happened to usually respect my SSO cookie. But now, "managing" all my domain apps under one roof, well, is nasty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "The three general areas where organizations feel the Google Tax most strongly are deployment, IT support costs and user training,"

Could someone explain how #1 and #2 applies to Docs?

<comment><USER12> Importing a list of users to Google. Adding bookmarks and desktop shortcut icons to each user's desktop. Telling the user to use their web browser instead of Word.

These are pretty much the same costs as transitioning to any new software, though. I consider myself a pretty experienced computer user, but after Microsoft made the Office 2007 change (with the "ribbon" instead of menus and toolbars), I was lost. Obviously I was able to find help on my own and RTFM, but this is not a skill most people using Word have. So switching from Office 2005 to Office 2007 was probably just as expensive as switching from Office to Google.

Interesting how Microsoft doesn't point that out.

<comment><USER11> I agree, that is the cost of changing software, it's disingenuous to call it a Google Tax.

<comment><USER13> Yes, certainly it's disingenuous, but it also reinforces the theory that anyone spouting an "X tax" line is biased anti-X. It's a nice leading indicator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's been a long time coming but it finally seems like Google Apps is making Microsoft sweat a little, if these petty comments are anything to go by.

</comment><comment><USER15> Seeing how bad a job Google recently did porting my GHD/GAYD account to their consolidated account type, past account errors[1], retraining issues, possible privacy issues, and given occasional Google Docs errors[2], I would avoid depending on Google Docs at a large company.

[1] A few years ago, Google moved all my Google Reader RSS feeds from my Google Hosted address to the GMail address I use for logging in to YouTube.

[2] Sometimes a spreadsheet will take a long time to finish loading, or won't finish loading, or after making edits it will fail to save. It's very rare, but deeply irritating. Excel or Word may take a long time to load, but for me they've never failed to load, and once running they're pretty snappy.</comment>


Similarities between the Learn to Code Movement and Online Poker - <AUTHOR> http://bplesser.com/2014/01/02/similarities-between-the-learn-to-code-movement-and-online-poker/

<comment><USER2> one similarity you called out is "They also share a risk loving profile (though maybe not to quite the same extent)."

I don't really follow this. Maybe it's true that engineers in early-stage startups have greater risk tolerance than average, but this is more related to the startup part, not the engineering part. There's nothing in software engineering that is inherently risk-loving (you could probably argue the opposite).

Overall, I like coding, and poker, but I don't really see this as a super apt comparison IMO, outside of general things like logical thinking, working hard, and liking money.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do many people drop out of code schools or drop off after completion, like poor poker players would after finding out it's harder than it looked?

<comment><USER4> That's a great question. Developer bootcamps are a huge time (3 months) and financial ($10k) commitment. Lots of risk if you're uncertain about your interest/proficiency in coding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting comparison. By the way, do you still play sometimes or you quit completely?

<comment><USER4> I played in the World Series of Poker in 2010 (the worst experience ever) and then quit completely. I was sick of the whole thing.</comment></comment>


Prioritizing resources for a faster app startup - <AUTHOR> http://tech.trivago.com/2016/08/19/js-startup-improvements/ <comment><USER2> Author here. Let me know if you have any questions.</comment>


As an English European, this is the biggest defeat of my political life - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-brexit <comment><USER2> Among those who voted for leaving there must be someone able to articulate a valid and reasonable justification for that vote. I'm genuinely curious to hear that.

<comment><USER3> Not a Brit, but for one, it means Britian can control influx of immigrants and refugees. I'm sure that played into many people's votes.

<comment><USER4> Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market.

The refugee situation is unlikely to change from the current status quo. Britain is already hosting fewer refugees than almost any other country in central or southern Europe.

<comment><USER5> > Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market.

That's what is going to change. That is the primary motive for exit.

Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are probably right in my view.

Thinking otherwise is like believing that other people are able to move into your house without asking but you know, it's 'your' house on paper. That's something only an intellectual of the worse kind could believe.

<comment><USER6> > That's what is going to change.

It will? Enlighten me, how will this take place?

> That is the primary motive for exit.

No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today.

What _will_ change is that the UK (or England, or whatever will be left of it) will be further marginalized, both on the European and the world stage.

> Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right > typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are > probably right in my view.

Sad.

<comment><USER2> > No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately > that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today.

We should not this is the best possible outcome. It can get much, much worse.

<comment><USER6> Already there are reports of violence against Muslims and Poles in some parts of the UK. The best of human nature at work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's political defeat, sure. Otherwice I don't see how anything changes.

Britain gets similar deal as Norway has. Not in a EU, but member of EEA (European Economic Area ) and EFTA (European Free Trade Association). There will be free travel, Britain will still pay for EU. Britain can even be participatory member in many EU institutions.

The only difference is that Britain has no vote. Since Britain has always been the one to rebel against and drag it's feet in EU, this might actually speed up decision making in EU.

<comment><USER8> It's very dangerous to assume the UK will get the same sort of deal as Norway. Norway has some unique cultural and exononomic attributes that are very different from the UK.

Whilst it is in the interest of the EU to have a trade agreement with UK, the UK does not have a strong negotiating position.

Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising the entire EU project.

<comment><USER9> Britain is quite unlikely to keep their rebate if they go this route, so they'll end up spending more on the EU than they currently do.

<comment><USER4> The UK was paying 0.3% of their budget for control of 9% of the European Parliament. Following the Norway model, they will keep paying a similar amount of money but control 0% of the parliament.

Excellent choice, my dear Britons, excellent choice.

<comment><USER10> Hardly a majority at 9% though, in most cases 9% is just as good as 0%. lol

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As an outsider trying to summarize the pros and cons:

Remain: Pros: Free trade with Eu, cheap flights, move around Europe for jobs.

Cons: no control on immigration, cheap labor stealing jobs, shitty eu rules.

Leave: Pros: Control over pound. Control on immigration. Control on governance.

Cons: taxes on eu trade, can't move freely for jobs.

But the Uk was kind of special. They didn't have the euro. They weren't part of schengen zone. Apart from influx of immigrants they had a good deal right?

Is the biggest leave argument the proposal to control who enters the border and not pay EU fees? That is a legit argument.

</comment><comment><USER12> The EU is in a massive panic and stands to loose a lot more than the UK in money and structure than the UK if exit negotiations go badly. Therefore the UK is in a much stronger position and should just patiently refuse all proposals that involve paying the EU or allowing free movement; the EU will then need to agree quickly to stop the EU descending into chaos.

<comment><USER13> Not so fast. The EU has already accepted that the UK is gone. They are pressuring for negotiations to start, and refusing to do any kind of informal negotiation. It does not look like they are afraid of negotiating at all, which suggests they have a good position.

The UK, on the other hand, ... I don't even know what the UK is doing. Are they even going to follow through?

My impression is that the UK is going to drag its feet for years to come and not activate article 50 in a long time, until your internal political climate either forces a new referendum or general elections [1]:

> Some, however, have warned Britain "may never" trigger the formal divorce > process because the tight deadline for talks puts the leaver in a weak > position. "I personally believe they will never notify," one diplomat said. > "The moment you push the button you're in a stupid negotiating position."

In the meantime, the UK's role in the EU has been permanently damaged, and some important decisions are being taken [2]:

> As shockwaves from the Brexit vote continued to spread, EU officials also > said on Sunday the bloc was preparing to move its European Banking Authority > from London, setting up a race led by Paris and Frankfurt to host the > regulator.

[1], [2] [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe- leade...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders- crunch-talks-brexit-fallout)

<comment><USER12> Interesting, but wanting a fast negotiation is a result of panic and the prospect of an economic downturn for the EU. Germany does not want a weak pound as it will badly hit their exports to the UK. The EU's best strategy is to quickly agree to free trade after Brexit and then re-structure the EU so that other countries don't quit. Alternatively non-EU European countries like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc could conceivably set up a more practical alternative trading union. In any event the currency and stock trading frenzy is over the top and mainly fuelled by the hyper-reality presented by the media, as in the end it is still likely that not much will change economically short or long term - for the UK! The UK will take its time - and it should - it will take time for the major European countries to understand their and the EU's fundamental ineffectiveness in solving major problems.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Stream your pen/paper, explain remote students super effectively - <AUTHOR> Turn any smartphone into projector, project your physics experiments, chemistry labs, even good old pen & paper live (on zoom, Google meet or equivalent)
Cable free and at zero cost
https://show.veda.ai/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN, Lot of educators are now teaching remotely but the most favourite tool of a teacher, whiteboard/blackboard is missing from their teaching arsenal

We built a p2p way to stream any smartphone camera to a browser so that they can point phone towards a pen & paper and stream it live to students on zoom, google meet etc

Please do checkout and leave your valuble feedback.

[https://show.veda.ai/](https://show.veda.ai/)

<comment><USER2> Stream the demonstration?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Handy tool, Can it store the video? So that one can extend this for a surveillance app as well using old phones. Similar to guardian project's Haven.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there source code? Somewhere we can find out more about this project?

</comment><comment><USER5> Awesome thought,comes very much handy!

</comment><comment><USER6> Cool idea , launch app in play store.</comment>


Burger King's new television ad that triggers Google Home - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/no-thank-you/ <comment><USER2> While the commercial is quite awfully smug it does show an important security issue with devices that can be triggered by audio only.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Google Home has stopped answering to that annoying Burger King ad... was likely just a quick fix on the server side designed to block a specific waveform...Interestingly, it's not the specific function, just the voice from the ad. Asking Home what a "Whopper sandwich" is in your own voice (like a Big Mac, but smaller) will bring up the Wikipedia entry as initially intended." Source: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/google-home-has-stopped- an...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/google-home-has-stopped-answering-to- that-annoying-burger-king-ad/)</comment></comment>


DropTunes. Your Music + Dropbox - <AUTHOR> https://droptun.es/login <comment><USER2> I don't like the idea of entering my Dropbox credentials directly into an untrusted site. Doesn't Dropbox have any safer means of authentication for these kinds of services, like twitter or facebook offer?

Seems like a cool service, though.

<comment><USER3> Not only is it unsafe, but it makes your folder completely public, which is just begging for legal action by the music industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The root URL <https://droptun.es/> is an apache welcome page. I think I'd need a bit more information about the people behind this before entering my dropbox username and password into the login form.

</comment><comment><USER5> This site has blatant security flaws, try inserting '"><h1> into either the username or password field and see what it returns.

</comment><comment><USER6> Username/password shouldn't actually be needed for this functionality. Just sharing a folder with music would be enough.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a new user just discovering this website, I need following information:

\- What does DropTunes do? Not everyone understands what "Your Music" + "Dropbox" means. Actually, most normal people don't know Dropbox at all.

\- Are there also mobiles apps? Can I use that on my phone? My iPad? If I don't know I don't want to try it.

\- Where should I put my music on Dropbox? Why does it needs my credentials? Could as well use my public folder.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps this could be an alternative: <http://grooveshark.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't know if i can trust this site :S

@janektm thanks for the url, looks like a great service</comment>