Most Remote Spots in USA Wilderness Complexes - <AUTHOR> http://www.peakbagger.com/report/report.aspx?r=w <comment><USER2> I've been in at least a couple of the places in that list, and probably about as far from civilization as possible in those areas. I'm willing to believe their numbers are technically correct.

But I bet cityfolk have a reeeeeeaally different notion of "road" than is meant here.

Take the Trinity Alps complex for example. It's got, still to this day, my least favorite approach ever. You go way up the north coast, then along 299 (if I remember right), then through a reservation, and then you get on this lovely little road that's several miles of 15-mile-an-hour white-knuckle less- than-single-lane rough gravel, with steep granite on one side and a drop straight down to a river on t'other, and a whole lot of blind corners. You do that for a while, then you see the yellow sign posted that says, "Road Narrows", and whaddaya know, it sure as heck does.

It's a road that started as a trail and never really had any ambitions beyond that.

There are a ton of logging roads and fire cuts all over the place too. Lots of dusty hill climbs. Other rarely-trafficked routes where the macho advertising for your 4WD meets a grim reality.

Maps aren't necessarily current, either. I once bailed off the Wonderland Trail in Rainier after a partner took a bad fall. According to the map and the GPS, there was a road just a few miles out that led to a paved road that led to civilization. Great. Well, we get there, and after swimming through dense, wet vegetation for a while, start finally seeing signs that, yeah, there was a road there, about a hundred years ago.

18 miles as the bird flies can easily turn into two days' hiking in some of that terrain, too.

<comment><USER3> I live just north of Truckee. One day my GF had to go do some surveying over towards Nevada City. The easy way would have been out to 80, down to NC, and survey. Probably 2-2.5 hours of driving. I had the day free and said, "hey, lets try the back way -- via Downieville, Forest, Alleghany, etc. She said sure. That didn't work out so well.

Everything was going great, narrow roads crossing part of the Yuba River, gorgeous country, tight switchbacks and dangerous drops. Ended up on Foote Crossing Road, crossed the Yuba, climbed up a ways on a road maybe 2-3 wider than my Tacoma. Come around a corner, a chunk of slate had slid down covering the road days before. The options were backup 2+ miles or try and move the rock. Having a tow rope, we tried to move the large rock -- it moved, just not enough. After about 2.5 hours, a group came from the other direction and helped us out.

You have to be careful when out there. Before I do something like that again, despite thinking I was prepared, I'll do a bit more research and probably add a high lift jack and some other toys.

<comment><USER2> Howdy neighbor! I'm not far away. I really like the Meadow Lake and Old Man Mountain area.

It should be about 45 minutes flat from Truckee to Nevada City over 20. The road you took is a nice drive, but yeah, that intersection at Tyler Foote is no joke. If you take the wrong turn there, you'll end up like that woman that got stuck in mud for a few days in the middle of a storm 11 miles out in the middle of nowhere.

<comment><USER3> I'm actually 45 min from Truckee - near Gold Lakes Highway. So I was including that time :)

The roads are fun to explore, but you shouldn't be on a schedule doing so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the most shocking facts about the lower 48 is that it's impossible to get more than 115 miles from a McDonalds.

That's not on a road - that's _anywhere_ in the lower 48.

I always assume nearby a McDonald's would likely be a gas station.

Growing up in Australia and now living in the Yukon this blows my mind. I just drove 35,000 miles from Morocco to Cape Town in South Africa, and there were zero McDonalds that entire time. [1]

The Lower 48 is extremely densely developed!

[0] [http://www.datapointed.net/2009/09/distance-to-nearest- mcdon...](http://www.datapointed.net/2009/09/distance-to-nearest-mcdonalds/) and [http://www.datapointed.net/2010/09/distance-to-nearest- mcdon...](http://www.datapointed.net/2010/09/distance-to-nearest-mcdonalds- sept-2010/)

[1] [http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition- overview](http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview)

<comment><USER5> I've done a lot of expedition-style driving (can't stand the words "expedition" and "overlanding" as they are used today) and that straight line distance is very deceiving. I've been to many places that are many more that 115 road-miles from a McDonald's. A few places come to mind: deep in the southern part of the Owyhee Desert along the NV/ID border (one of the least- populated places in the Lower 48), and out in the Wah Wah Mountains [0] of southern Utah.

There are some photos of these places on my IG: [https://instagram.com/desertdefender](https://instagram.com/desertdefender)

[0] [https://instagram.com/p/BjRFEeZDxBI/](https://instagram.com/p/BjRFEeZDxBI/)

<comment><USER6> I'm a big Utah fan but always limited by being there with a rental car. This spot looks amazing:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/Bk63o62gzUm/?taken- by=desertdefe...](https://www.instagram.com/p/Bk63o62gzUm/?taken- by=desertdefender)

<comment><USER5> That spot is my favorite campsite anywhere. Here's a video pan that shows it a little better: [https://instagram.com/p/Bi0dm0Tj2Vz/](https://instagram.com/p/Bi0dm0Tj2Vz/)

Part of why I love it is the pure awesomeness of the location: it commands a view over a large part of the UT/AZ border clear down to the Grand Canyon. It gets beautiful sunrises and sunsets and it's breezy but not wind-whipped. The camping is pretty bad if you sleep in a ground tent because of the deep sand but we slept in our trucks so it was fine.

The other thing that I love about the place was how I first found it. I was combing Google Maps satellite view in a SF hotel room late one night and found the almost-invisible track out to the edge of the cliff. A few nights later, I was there, driving it. I headed out to the spot alone, well after midnight. Camping alone is always a little freaky but camping at the end of a five mile dead-end trail was really spooky. The trail is super gnarly and overgrown. There are washouts and the last half-mile is in deep sand. I went to sleep that first night on the point not knowing what lay before me. I woke up the next morning and was stunned at the incredible view that I'd stumbled upon. It will always be among my favorites.

<comment><USER4> I love your instagram, and based on your description here it sounds like you're ready to head out far and wide!

I'll be back in the Yukon in ~18 months, it would be great to show you around.. and I highly recommend Alaska. After that you really should consider a run down to Argentina - it's simply stunning and totally achievable.

West Africa was like another planet entirely. I wild-camped like you describe virtually every day for an entire year - always in stunningly beautiful places down nasty tracks far away from other people. Now East Africa continues to impress each and every day!

<comment><USER5> I'd love to make it up to Alaska. I do most of my trips with a core group of friends that I've been traveling with for the last ten years or so. It's tough to coordinate schedules so we usually end up doing about 7 days together in the late spring. Given the distance involved with a Yukon trip, it just hasn't been feasible to get up there. We're thinking about a Baja trip but I would have to ship my truck to L.A. from Kansas because it just takes too long to get down there at 55 MPH.

Africa is a dream. I would have loved to have driven down the west coast before Mauritania got so dangerous. I once read a book called "My Mercedes is (not) For Sale" that got me hooked on the area. Suwame Magazine is a place that I want to see before I die.

<comment><USER4> > _Given the distance involved with a Yukon trip, it just hasn 't been > feasible to get up there._

Get on the Alaska Marine Line ferry from Bellingham Washington up to Haines or Skagway, AK. In the off season it's cheaper and faster than driving, and you'll see tons of stuff you want to see - whales, eagles, glaciers, icebergs, etc. etc.

> _I would have loved to have driven down the west coast before Mauritania got > so dangerous._

Don't believe the hype. I personally met hundreds of people that drove it, and dozens that have driven it every year for 10+ years, and not a single person has ever had problems. Not even once. There are a lot of roadblocks where they check your paperwork - they're keeping everyone safe!

> _My Mercedes is (not) For Sale_

I read the same book to help build my stoke, loved it too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 18.7 miles is a long distance. If you're 18.7 miles from the closest motorized access point, you're in the middle of 1098 square miles of untouched land. Based on my memories of exploring the woods as a child, you could spend a full year getting to know the details of even a single square mile of natural landscape.

I think it's an interesting irony here that, primarily because of motor travel, we imagine that an 18.7-mile radius is not that substantial. (Yes, a marathon is more distance than that, but those are usually on paved roads and not through wilderness. The legend is that the first to run a marathon died of exhaustion on its completion.)

<comment><USER8> !8.7 is not a long distance if you are in good shape. I regularly do 12-18 mile hikes during the weekend, sometimes with significant elevation gain.

<comment><USER9> About 5x slower if it's off trail, cross country terrain. Brush can be impenetrable.

<comment><USER10> Or you regret the adventure later when the entire off trail section was through poison oak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To be more complete "from roads, machines, and motors." I live in Idaho and know for a fact you can get further than 18.76 miles from a road. The addition of "machines and motors" brings motorized trails into scope and yeah, at that point I believe it.

<comment><USER12> I've been contemplating moving to Idaho. It is a beautiful place. I would like to find a part of Idaho that has low crime, has at least 30mb internet and ideally low maintenance land.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very dissatisifed with the evidence in this article (only national parks?), so I did my own digging.

Here is a 2005 USGS map [1] color-coding nearest road distance for every 30m x 30m square [2] in the lower 48. Surprisingly, it seems to hold up the article's claim reasonably well, and without resorting to discussing 'machines' or 'motors'.

[1] [https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3011/report.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3011/report.pdf)

[2] Edit: the map shows 1 km x 1 km averages of the higher-resolution 30 m x 30 m bins.

<comment><USER14> >only national parks?

Having just come out of spending over a week in the Pasayten wilderness, it's most definitely not a national park..

<comment><USER15> Right, just to clarify, a "wilderness area" is similar to a national park in that it is land that is set aside by governmental decree, but most things are banned in a wilderness area, notably motor vehicles, whereas many national parks have all sorts of development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The actual title of the article does not mention roads, probably because they "all motorized travel, including the legal use of motorboats on portions of Yellowstone Lake."

>So the remote Thorofare location and radius shown here will not match values calculated purely from the road network.

</comment><comment><USER17> I grew up in very rural NM, and while you can find a road in some of these areas, I doubt you'll see more than a few cars a month during peak times of the year.

Just because there's a road doesn't mean that it gets much use. Some are only used to haul animals, oil or timber a few times a year.

<comment><USER18> Some of them _were_ only used a few times a year. I don't know exactly how remote you can get in NM but I know plenty of our marked roads go to mines that haven't been active in a century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting data set, but what I'd want to know is what is the farthest you can get from the farthest road.

This tells us that wherever we are, IFF we walk in one of the 2-3 the optimal headings for that circle, we'll hit a road in ~18 miles max. That's the best worst-case.

What about the worst worst case -- if we head in the most un-optimal direction? How effed are we in that circumstance?

<comment><USER20> In some place in the West you definitely can be very effed. I can imagine Alaska being even worse.

<comment><USER21> I just watched exactly that last weekend. Not even all that remote (Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness). Guy came down with appendicitis overnight, a 10mi hike in from the nearest road/trailhead.

He was fortunate enough to be able to get out to a major trail and someone with a PLB passed by and called it in, so they could get a helicopter out to him.

But had he been on a slightly less popular trail, he might not have had that luck, and it could easily have been 10 hours for someone to come across him and then speed hike out to a cell signal.

<comment><USER20> I just bought a satellite messenger for the case something goes very wrong. Hope I'll never use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I actually find this rather upsetting. I'd always assumed if you went to the right places out west, you'd be able to get at least 50 miles or so from anything if you wanted to. It seems the west isn't quite as wild as I wanted it to be.

<comment><USER23> Some of these roads are likely extremely remote logging or dirt roads though. Some of them might not see a car for weeks at a time I would imagine.

<comment><USER24> I expect some of these roads haven't seen anyone (person or car) for years.

"Roads" don't really seem to die. Once they are mapped, they show up forevermore -- even if no-one is taking them and no-one is checking that they are still navigable.

<comment><USER10> The forest service, at least in some of the more "popular" areas in WA, CA and OR sometimes rates the road on their motor vehicle use map so you know the likelihood you'll actually be able to use it. On BLM land I've found map roads that there is little no evidence of at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I live in Mazama, Washington right on the edge of the Pasayten Wilderness (we can run from the house and be in the wilderness in a few trail miles). It is a massive, remote, beautiful place that even most people in Seattle have never heard of. There are downsides to living so remotely but the upsides far outweigh them.

<comment><USER26> Seattle all my life and I've never heard of Mazama or Pasayten Wilderness -.-

<comment><USER25> It's only 3.5 hours from Seattle in the summer when Washington Pass is open and about 5 hours in the winter. Beautiful and worth a weekend visit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It looks like they limit the radius of wilderness to the US border. The circle for Boundary Waters would be bigger otherwise, since the Quetico (on Canada's side) is wilderness as well.

<comment><USER28> From the article: "Wilderness areas in Canada are not taken into account. There is no Canadian national wilderness designation program like there in the USA, and determining the boundaries of land with wilderness character in the various parks would be difficult. Three US wilderness complexes have inscribed circles constrained by the border with Canada, and a glance at aerial maps for the areas north of the Mount Baker and Pasyaten wilderness areas show what looks like roads and clear-cuts over the border. However, the Boundary Waters wilderness is next to the vast Quetico Provincial Park in Ontario, which appears to be mostly primeval. So the radius for Boundary Waters could be as high as 13.6 miles if allowed to go over the border."

<comment><USER27> Ahhhh thanks for RTFA for me

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just by looking at the first example you can actually "be more than 18.76 miles from a road" if you don't limit your radius by park boundaries. Probably 20-somthingish just eyeballing the first map without looking at other examples where (maybe) multiple parks share borders.

<comment><USER30> There's also the assumption that Wilderness Areas are automatically the furthest from roads, machines, and motors. That may be true but I don't automatically take that as automatically true given the size of some of the National Forests out west. It's probably true given the different rules governing Wilderness Areas vs. non-wilderness areas of forests. But I wouldn't make a big bet.

<comment><USER31> Their definition of wilderness area is quite broad and includes areas within national forests that are "de-facto" wildernesses:

> Four categories of Wilderness area were considered for this analysis:

> \- Federal Wilderness Areas, designated by the 1964 Wilderness Act and > subsequent congressional action. These are by far the best known and most > numerous of the wilderness areas in the USA—there are about 750 of them, > preserving federal land managed by the Forest Service, the National Park > Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

> \- "De-facto" Wilderness Areas in National Parks: In most large National > Parks (e.g. Olympic, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain), the bulk of the park's > backcountry has been officially designated as wilderness area. However, > three large parks—Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Glacier—have large > undeveloped tracts that are managed by park staff as wilderness despite lack > of official designation. For this analysis, the large primitive areas of > these parks have been included, since park regulations in these areas are > essentially the same as in officially-designated areas.

> \- State Wilderness Areas: In New York state (Adirondacks and Catskills) and > Maine (Baxter State Park on Katahdin), large wilderness areas are managed by > the State government. Large parts of these parks have been designated as > official state wilderness areas and are managed in a similar fashion to > federal wilderness.

> \- Tribal Wilderness: Finally, a handful of large Indian Reservations have > designated large areas as Tribal wilderness. Perhaps the two most notable > are adjacent to federal wilderness in the Wind River Range of Wyoming and > the Mission Mountains of Montana. These are included in the overall > wilderness areas.

<comment><USER30> > "De-facto" Wilderness Areas in National Parks

National Parks, not National Forests. I wouldn't be certain that all remote corners of National Forests are necessarily Wilderness Areas.

[ADDED: But from what I see, this probably encompasses all the remote areas although others have calculated remote spots using different criteria.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Yvon Chouinard mentions this in his excellent book "Let My People Go Surfing," where he says the furthest you can get from a road in the lower 48 is about 20 miles, near the headwaters of the Snake River in Wyoming. Cool to see some methodology that lines up with that estimate.

</comment><comment><USER33> It looks like you get 18.7 miles for the Thorofare area if you look at the boundaries of the wilderness area, not roads. For OSM data, specifically, the area is bigger than that: 21.7 miles. If yall want to play yourselves:

[http://notes.secretsauce.net/notes/2017/09/25_pole-of- road-i...](http://notes.secretsauce.net/notes/2017/09/25_pole-of-road- inaccessibility-of-the-contiguous-us.html)

and for more fun:

[http://notes.secretsauce.net/notes/2015/05/06_poles-of- inacc...](http://notes.secretsauce.net/notes/2015/05/06_poles-of- inaccessibility-in-the-san-gabriel-mountains.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> The first entry (Thorofare wilderness) seems wrong. It appears that they incorrectly identified the wilderness complex boundaries as roads.

<comment><USER35> I saw the same thing for the only Adirondack entry on the list; there's on spot that is technically private property surrounded by wilderness that probably drops the distance in half. Sure somebody could put a road there, but the effort would be insane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The important thing to know is what the heading should be to that road, when you're lost. Knowing one is no more than 17miles from you max, when under weather stress, does little good and offers little comfort.

<comment><USER37> If you're REALLY lost look for powerlines, microwave towers, rivers, or easy to build in low-lying areas.

If river, follow down stream.

Anything else, vaguely, follow the power / sight lines towards obvious markers or a way of calling for help.

'way of calling for help' might involve tripping security sensors.

<comment><USER2> If you're lost, please stop moving and re-assess. If you have a cell signal, make a call for help (911 is just fine). If you don't, hopefully you brought a PLB. Go ahead and use it. If you can't make a call or use a PLB, then get out your GPS and start following your track back the way you came (almost always better than venturing deeper into the unknown just because there's supposed to be a road up ahead). If you also don't have a GPS, then get out your map and start figuring out how to go back the way you came in. If you don't have a map ... what the heck are you doing, anyway?

There are quite a few places where trying to follow water downstream, or even powerlines, will get you even deeper into trouble.

In _most_ areas, people wait too long to ask for help, and they can make their situation worse by trying to self-rescue. In most counties that have wilderness areas, there's a county search and rescue team, all volunteers, who are familiar with the area and will be perfectly happy to come and get you at no cost. That comes with the added benefit that you'll get to meet some cool folks, and if you suddenly get sick or injured or something else goes wrong, people with first aid training will be right there.

SAR teaches kids, "if you're lost, hug a tree" for good reason.

<comment><USER37> My above advice was /not/ for kids.

Things are very situational dependent. If you're reading this on hacker news I'm /assuming/ my intended audience is an adult, probably intelligent enough to not intentionally wind up somewhere bad, but has found themselves there anyway.

If that happened they might not have a (working) phone and might also not have anything else but their whits.

Kids, usually, have a parent or guardian that expects to know where they are, so search and rescue is a reasonable expectation and staying near where you were last known to be is the best policy.

Adults aren't likely to be missed for hours or days. While I am not an expert it is my logical belief that reaching a situation where help resources can be summoned is a better policy, and further, that the above steps are also the most logical expansion routes FOR a search zone.

<comment><USER2> The approach when educating kids is a bit different, but the message is the same: once a person finds themselves in a bad situation, the preference is to stay put and ask for help, if possible.

> _the above steps are also the most logical expansion routes FOR a search > zone._

It doesn't really work like that. Although there are books on the subject (Lost Person Behavior) and some other efforts to figure out behavior statistically, and local SAR managers will have some hunches based on experience, nobody can entirely get into the head of a missing person and judge with any certainty whether one direction or another is better during a search.

Search managers are well aware that "follow water downhill" is common advice going back to the boy scouts, but when a missing person inevitably encounters some obstacle along the way, they deviate from that plan. The search area gets big really quickly, and SAR teams are a limited resource. It's _way_ better to respond to coordinates from a phone call or a PLB than it is to spend days with a lot of boots on the ground.

<comment><USER38> Great post. Just to emphasize this point:

> nobody can entirely get into the head of a missing person and judge with any > certainty whether one direction or another is better during a search.

Let's say a group gets separated during a hike, and Bob goes missing. No one noticed for a little while. Bob doesn't have a map but is fairly capable in the outdoors.

Your group sends a couple people back to the last place he was seen. It's a nice straightforward search area. Bob isn't there. Now we need to widen the search area.

Bob might have followed a steam - and in the couple of hours it took to get back to where he was last seen, he may have gone a couple miles.

Or he might have tried to get to a high point to look around. The nearest likely hill is a mile away, but there's another option in the other direction.

Or maybe Bob retraced his steps and is headed back on the trail you all came in on together.

All of a sudden your search area is 15 square miles, and with each potential decision with every passing hour, it gets wider.

You could put complete trust in his abilities and just wait for him to self rescue, but what if he gets hurt? What if he doesn't show up in a couple days?

Wouldn't it have been great if Bob had hugged a tree?

<comment><USER37> In your context bob is with a group. The group knows where bob is.

THAT is the important distinction. As someone lost you KNOW you are known to be lost AND have an idea where others SHOULD be looking for you.

AGAIN, my advice is for the inverse of this context, where you must report your self as 'lost'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Equaling remoteness with being a designated wilderness is not the best way to find the most remote spots. Get on Tarantula Mesa or Upper Stevens Canyon in Utah. It is not a wilderness, but a National Monument (the one shrunk by the orange piece of shit in white house, btw), but these places are exceptionally remote. Certainly more remote than Thorofare in Yellowstone.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is awesome! I've been near a few of these spots. However, some, at least, of their data is out of date.

For the Adirondack High Peaks complex, much of the Tahawus Tract, which bounds the circle on the southeast side, has been officially part of the wilderness area for five or so years now. I used to work at the main visitor's center in the area, and now work remote from about two miles from the northern edge of the complex. I'd say that adds roughly a mile to the radius here, but it could be a little less.

Also, in the near future, the bounds of the complex will change drastically at the southeast edge. The Boreas Ponds tract has been acquired by the state, and while it hasn't yet been officially designated as wilderness, when it is, it will connect the High Peaks to the Dix Mountain Wilderness, making the overall complex -- already the largest in the northeast -- something like 20% larger. But it won't stop it being a crazy shape.

</comment><comment><USER41> Panhandle Lake is NOT the most remote place in the Boundary Waters. Not by any stretch. A clay foot algorithm.

I've had 100 square miles alone to myself in the BWCA for days/weeks and know the park well.

Since the BWCA is adjacent to the Quetico (on the Canadian side of the border), the concept of remote skews much further north. Time of year is also "remote" ... late October/early November is beautiful, if you don't get "iced- in" for winter and can neither canoe nor walk out.

A relatively remote lake is Lake Kiana, where I've been between two simultaneous wolf packs (100 yds and 150 yards away in opposite directions). BWCA is where Yellowstone re-populated its wolves from. That close to 20-25 wolves chasing deer in the deep of night ... you listen for the "yip, yip, yip" of the pups trying to learn and keep up.

</comment><comment><USER42> >where nature reigns supreme and no powered travel is permitted.

Except for airplanes and helicopters of course. There are no airspace restrictions preventing you from flying over these locations and I know people who have landed both planes and helicopters in these regions (although likely illegally).

<comment><USER10> You can fly over but you can't land. I'm not sure what the rule is about jumping out of the helicopter hovering a few feet above. Clearly against the spirit of the designated wilderness.

Planes are in fact really common sight over many of the Sierra Nevada wilderness as east coast to west coast transcontinental flight paths go right over the area, its a constant reminder you aren't really that far away. Some of the wilderness along the CA coast feel quite remote as you see almost no planes passing over you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Fun trivia: at the highest vehicle accessible road in WA state (Slate Peak radar site), I have seen people get all the way to the top in a 1995 Toyota Corolla. The road to get there is not so terrible. There are many truly gnarly logging roads and things that will require a serious lifted 4x4 in first gear with AT tires. But all those are at lower elevation.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=slate+peak+wa&oq=slate+peak+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=slate+peak+wa&oq=slate+peak+wa&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.2316j0j7&sourceid=chrome- mobile&ie=UTF-8)

</comment><comment><USER44> I live close to the top few locations in the list, although I've not yet had sufficient spare time to actually hike 20 miles off-road. But another interesting thing about this area is how far it is from a "proper city". e.g. 8h drive to Salt Lake or Calgary. 11h to Denver and Seattle. I'm not aware of any place in the lower 48 that's so far from metropolitian living. e.g. the next place down the list : Sierra Nevada. If you lived in a town nearby, say Mariposa : you're only 4h from San Francisco (assuming 580 is only moderately stationary).

</comment><comment><USER45> >>> The radius in miles shows how large a circle can be fit into each area, and how remote each point is.

That distance is rather meaningless on the ground. Terrain matters. A big wall climber can be only a few hundred meters from a road on a map but still days away. On foot, 18 miles of Idaho pasture is much smaller than 3 miles of Florida swampland.

I expect that there are parts of Lake Michigan that are more than 18 miles from the nearest road.

</comment><comment><USER46> What are the largest contiguous privately owned parcels in the U.S.? And what is a good way to find private landowners using GIS in general?

<comment><USER10> Maybe the King Ranch in Texas?

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

<comment><USER47> For an indicator of scale -- the King Ranch is four separate plots that aren't contiguous covering 825,000 acres.

Anna Creek Station covers 5,850,000 acres. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_Station)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The one in ME is wrong, there are roads in BSP.

<comment><USER49> It's correct, the wilderness boundary line for Baxter follows the road. They didn't just use the park extent.

<comment><USER50> Nope, the [park tote] road at 46.011344, -69.061875 is within the "remote radius" at peakbagger by about 450-500m. It's still in the top-50, but it's a tad lower on the list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> To bad there is nothing in Wisconsin, one of the more beautiful states.

</comment><comment><USER52> Just wait until you visit Western Europe.

<comment><USER53> In northern Scotland id would assume Norway and Sweden you can get a long way from roads Loch Ranoch area springs to mind

<comment><USER44> Train there though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This is in specific national parks though and includes all motorized vehicles not maintained roads.

</comment><comment><USER54> The West is the Best!

</comment><comment><USER55> We've updated the title from "In the contiguous US, you can never be more than 18.76 miles from a road", which breaks the submission guideline that asks for the original.

<comment><USER56> ...though the original headline is itself incorrect. The analysis excludes Alaska.

"Most Remote Spots in USA Wilderness Complexes" should read "Most Remote spots in the Wilderness Complexes of the US Lower 48"

From the article's fine print:

> Alaska is excluded from this analysis, since the scale and character of > wilderness there is simply very different than in the "Lower 48". If Alaska > wilderness areas were part of this project, the most remote spot would be in > the middle of the Mollie Beattie Wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife > Refuge in the eastern Brooks Range, with an inscribed circle radius of 42.75 > miles. Ironically, however, rules for wilderness in Alaska are different, > and airplane landings are permitted in most areas. So in some ways you are > more remote in the Thorfare area of Wyoming.</comment></comment>


Need Help HN – Longtime HNer Needs Help - <AUTHOR>

This is a pseudonym. Don't want to publicly reveal my identity. Fear? Pride? Maybe.
Am like most of you. Have a few K Karma, been here for a while. Love patio11's comments, grellas's legal analysis of stuff that bother me, and YC.
I build web apps for clients, but am working on my own product. A non-tech product, so won't be launching on HN (rather where my customers are).
All new products, take a while. Since it is non-tech, I can't just ship and fix bugs later. The feedback/shipping loop is much longer than a web app.
I am now disillusioned with building web apps. Last few months, a client ran out of money mid-project and other prospective leads have been dragging their feet. The result has been a MAJOR cash crunch the last 4 months. Scraped by on savings for the two months, and credit cards since. But have reached my limits and need options.
Married with 3 young kids and stay-at-home wife.
I don't want to get a job because I know my product launch is around the corner (perhaps the next few weeks - few months).
Ideally, I would like to do some contract work.
My skillset: Rails developer; MBA, with a solid grasp of finance and startups; Learn quickly.
Looking For: A few flat-fee contracts; Range: $5K - $20K; I can analyze data, pull out trends, and give you new insight to help you make business decisions; Even data accessible only via a RESTful API; Think customer acquisition costs, conversion rates, determine margins, traffic analysis trends; I LOVE solving business problems; The gig should also be remote-friendly, via Skype or something.
Once we connect, I will reveal my identity to you - but ask you to keep it private.
If I can truly add value, let me know. Not to sound cavalier, but don't want pity work. This is not a woe-is-me post.
Just a baring-it-all post, hoping that someone that has a need for my particular skillset will take a risk.
Be gentle plz - email@example.com
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I don't have any work that fits into your criteria, or otherwise really, but I can offer this...Just get a job. Whatever the job is, you have people depending on you and clearly have the ability to work.

It might take you longer to launch, it might not. You might have to give up nights and weekends, or you might have to give up the project altogether...but, get a job.

This advice is coming from someone who worked on a startup for almost 2 years, with a wife and child and no other substantial or reliable income.

<comment><USER3> I will definitely second this.

If you can get your contract work, that is excellent. Otherwise, with your MBA and your fiance skills you should be able to get a high paying work.

I find the HN mentality of "I don't want a job" or "I hate what I'm doing" a bit immature. When you have just yourself, who cares. When there's others involved its a completely different story.

In your case, you have 3 kids plus a wife depending on you. Suck it up and get a job and plan financially better so that you have a large runway to do your business.

You have incredible value to offer to a company who will pay a premium to leverage this value.

Here's another way to look at this: Is your choice to not get a job add more value to your family versus going out there and making 80k-150k?

You will have much better chance of succeeding with your company when you know your family is provided for.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not that I have a mentality that I "don't want a job".....and I know how it must seem without knowing the details of the stage of the project.

I guess you could consider this request almost like 'bridge financing', except I am trading my knowledge and work output for the financing rather than equity or debt :)

If push comes to shove, I may have to do that....but I am hoping to avoid that if I can.

Thanks for the encouragement though.</comment></comment></comment>


Former National Security Whistleblowers Award Sam Adams Prize to Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/3012-former-national-security-whistleblowers-meet-in-moscow-and-award-sam-adams-prize-to-snowden <comment><AUTHOR> _"It's clear that people of conscience within the intelligence community — people who are clearly in-the-know — condone Mr. Snowden's actions," stated Beatrice Edwards, GAP Executive Director. "This one fact speaks volumes and we expect to know more in the coming days."_</comment>


Can India plug its brain drain? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/10/hr/can-india-plug-its-brain-drain

<comment><USER2> Sure it can. With a tremendous effort and about 50+ years of time. When India stop being developing country with wide range of socioeconomic issues, then smart people won't feel compelled to leave it behind in the search of better place to live and work and realize their ideas.</comment>


RSS Rant - <AUTHOR> http://feliciaday.com/blog/rss-rant <comment><USER2> Sadly, RSS is like many other platforms without a default client. Well- engineered, extremely useful, but impossible to explain to non-technical people. Before you can use RSS, you have to know what it is, look for it on a website, and have a client downloaded or an account on a web service. For this to make sense you need a mental model of a server with information, a client requesting it, and a technical specification that teaches them to talk to each other.

Compare with Facebook or Twitter, where you click a link to the default client and can start using it right away.

Ultimately, you can google "Twitter" or "Facebook" and start using the platform right away. Google "RSS" and you get technical explanations, a Wikipedia page, and competing choices for feed readers.

<comment><USER3> The web has no default client.

Email has no default client.

TV has no default client.

The telephone network, after a lengthy battle involving AT&T, has no default client.

SMS has no default client.

Somehow, people find a way to use these things. It took many years from when the first web browser was written in 1990 to get to ubiquity. We got RSS in 1999 and it is in widespread use among web publishers; I can't think of a major news site that does not use it. Where we are lacking is in user uptake. Give it time. Open standards always take longer, but one will eventually get us there.

<comment><USER4> The default client for email and web is the one that comes with your computer. The default client for SMS is your phone. The default client for TV is to turn it on and flip through channels.

The point of the OP was not about having a single standardized client, but rather having the functionality baked into product(s) without the user having to seek it out on their own, or even learn what "RSS" means. The feeble attempts from Safari and Firefox are the closest we've come, but ideally this was a push that should have happened at the OS level, both on desktop and mobile.

<comment><USER5> This is one of the things we're working on at Start.Me (<http://thestart.me>) . We're trying to speed up your online browsing routine and figure out how to add both RSS and non-RSS sites to feeds without users necessarily having to know what RSS means; just what sites they want to keep up with. Would love anyone's feedback after we release something next week.

<comment><USER6> Not to be a debbie downer, but you can enter any website in Google Reader and get a feed subscription back too, without having to know what RSS means. (It doesn't, strictly speaking, work on non-RSS sites, true, but despite the recent trend we're talking about here, most sites still have 'em if you look hard enough.)

That said, it's a marketing thing. If you can make things click for the everyday joe, all the more power to you!

<comment><USER7> I had a site I used that feature for, but google took it away like a year ago

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not to be pedantic, but there are some of us who don't use Twitter but still want to follow tweets (e.g. in Google Reader). It's possible to get an RSS feed of tweets through the Twitter API: [http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/user_timeline.rss?screen_n...](http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/user_timeline.rss?screen_name=$USERNAME)

That's not really a solution, however. Kind of a drag that Twitter pulled RSS links down off of user pages..

<comment><USER9> Fun fact: Google Reader will understand <http://twitter.com/username> as an RSS feed. The trick is to remove the hashbang that Twitter automatically adds to the URL (i.e. <http://twitter.com/#!/username>) before attempting to add it as a feed.

<comment><USER10> This is awesome. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This reminds me of the stupidity of Spotify going to Facebook only. Don't lock yourself into ONLY using someone else's platform that only they control for authentication (facebook/twitter/etc). At least have an option for something like OAuth where you can host your own as well and no one group holds control.

I wonder when people will realize handing over the keys this way is a terrible idea. Support those platforms if you want, certainly. But don't make them the only way to interact with you.

</comment><comment><USER12> I happen to have worked on a SaaS offering entirely focused on aggregating and consolidating RSS feeds, and I can truly say that only a tiny minority of technically inclined people ever gave a shit about RSS feeds, or even understood what it meant. The fact of the matter is that most people have no urge to fuss with news aggregating tools.

RSS was also useful for streaming playlists and status items to thin clients, but they too are increasingly supporting full-on web browsers instead.

<comment><USER13> > I can truly say that only a tiny minority of technically inclined people > ever gave a shit about RSS feeds

So what? It's in your best interest to keep the nerds happy because they are the ones doing the actual work to push technology forward.

<comment><USER12> It goes back to the old 80/20 principle, and most content publishers are realizing what I learned: spending resources to keep a small minority of nerds happy doesn't put food on the table.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I expect this link is getting attention solely because it was written by Felicia Day, but I too have a list of a number of sites that I don't read as I wish I could because of their lack of RSS.

And taking it a step further, RSS without full-text is little better than no RSS.

<comment><USER15> There have been a few sites I have found interesting and wanted to follow, but ultimately don't because they don't have an RSS feed. I don't have the time, energy, or organization to go to the site every few days and check for updates. There are plenty of other things that I can read in my RSS aggregator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I look at this and say to myself "Felicia is using the wrong Twitter client. She should switch to the one that she actually wants. The only difficulty is that it might not exist yet."

Does it exist? What I think we might be looking for is a Twitter client that displays the usual timeline, but also can act like an RSS reader: For a subset of your followers, you can display a list of all their Tweets over the last 7 days that included a link, along with a preview of the content at that link. Surf down that display and mark a Tweet "read" and it disappears from that display (though it remains in the usual timeline).

Actually this might scream "Instapaper addon". I'd love to be able to select a subset of my Twitter followers and have their Tweeted URLs beamed directly into Instapaper to be read at my leisure. Come to think of it, I wonder if I could hack that up myself.

<comment><USER13> I look at this and say to myself, "This dude's missing the point."

Twitter is not a superset of RSS. It does a small part of what I do with RSS, but not all of it, and not in as nice of a way.

The Twitter-Instapaper thing is a good idea, but it's just not the same as RSS.

<comment><USER16> Alas, it doesn't matter how well RSS works for its current users. What matters is how well it works for publishers.

It's not merely that Twitter is easier to subscribe to, that the feeds are easier to set up and serve (there's almost nothing to do; Twitter's engineers do all the work), that the Twitter link-sharing protocol is intuitively obvious, that Twitter has a legendary brand while nobody knows what RSS is, that Twitter clients show the actual rendered HTML of the linked page (complete with those ads) rather than an often-incomplete text teaser or a bunch of broken formatting.

No, the killer feature of Twitter is the viral loop. Any individual tweet can be trivially forwarded, or trivially broadcast to an entire hashtag. And every tweet or retweet is also a self-contained advertisement for its author and a call to action: It takes only one click to bring up the entire history of its author's Twitter stream, and only one click to subscribe to that author's future Tweets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Outside of those of us that love Google Reader, I have to imagine that Search Engines and numerous content aggregators are ingesting RSS feeds. Removing them is going to degrade your distribution immensely and likely affect your SEO.

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell I prefer RSS/Atom as it is a "distributed" way of handling feeds, rather than relying on a single centralised service.

This is why my website will always have an RSS feed. I also have a Twitter feed for people who want it, but I'd prefer people to use RSS.

My tech blog seems to have about an equal number of RSS followers and Twitter followers. I'm not sure how much overlap there is.

</comment><comment><USER18> RSS is the most useful thing ever; if you hide it behind the a lovely interface and make the user forget about it. It's pretty hard to understate the efficiency that developers would lose out on, if RSS were to go. That said, I am mostly using Twitter to catch up with he latest news - it's so darn efficient

</comment><comment><USER19> "Basically I've noticed a huge trend not only in websites moving away from RSS to Twitter and FB, but REMOVING IT COMPLETELY!"

So why not subscribe to the Twitter or FB RSS feed of their content. Or am I missing something.

<comment><USER20> facebook doesn't offer rss

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's a reason I use FB and Twitter vs. RSS feeds. Because its so damn dominant, a lot of sources post to Twitter and FB exclusively. Furthermore, if there's anything particularly popular/huge/breaking, FB's algorithm populates the top of my feed with it. RSS feeds don't do that. Different clients' "magic" function doesn't work properly. RSS has become spam to me. For exclusive news, I thus rely on social clients.

For major news sources like Gawker, IGN, CNN, what have you, RSS is still there and probably won't be going away.

</comment><comment><USER22> If a website is good enough, its not hard to just make a screen scaper and turn it into an RSS feed.

This scrapes the HN front page every hour and is a lot easier to check:

<http://hn.af.rkive.org/feed.php?id=4>

<comment><USER23> Why, you could even have the screen scraper export to RSS!

<comment><USER24> Why, you could just use <http://news.ycombinator.com/rss> !

<comment><USER23> You realize I was joking...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> RSS - the internet's great underrated 'killer app'

<comment><USER26> s/internet/web/

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> unfortunately author is wrong G+ did not remove feeds..

If you look at your G+ profile page in view source in any browser you will see a Buzz activity atom feed for it..</comment>


Ikea has bought TaskRabbit - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/28/16377528/ikea-acquisition-taskrabbit <comment><USER2> This is hilarious/perfect to me personally, because I have only ever used TaskRabbit to hire someone to build Ikea furniture.

<comment><USER3> There are people who don't care to build their own Ikea furniture? How strange! I've always enjoyed building my own Ikea furniture! :)

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I'm not sure where the misconception of their furniture being difficult to build comes from. In my experience their instructions are unambiguous and well-designed.

<comment><USER5> It's not particularly difficult but nor is it particularly fun. I certainly don't plan to assemble the furniture for my next apartment myself.

<comment><USER6> But is that because you'll pay someone to assemble similar furniture, or because you'll buy better furniture that isn't just IKEA flat-packs?

<comment><USER7> I came to the same conclusion as morgante, next time I'd rather pay for assembly instead of doing it for myself for a whole weekend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope this improves IKEA's absolutely awful installation experience. I recently did some kitchen cabinets, and while the people who did the actual install were great, everything about the experience was awful. IKEA contracted it out to Traemand, who sub-contracted it out to a local company. The local company was really hard to get ahold of and kept losing paperwork and not scheduling things. Once they did schedule something, they sub-sub-contracted it out to yet someone else. The workers would arrive and I'd repeat the instructions I gave to the super contractors, and they'd get this panicked look and say, "Uh... I gotta call the boss about this. They didn't tell us X, Y, or Z" despite me repeatedly making sure that they understood X, Y, and Z. It was a nightmare. Once everything was installed, it was great, but I will never shop at IKEA again because of this experience.

<comment><USER9> The main issue there is that Ikea isn't owning the installation process. They should be making sure that they know who's doing the work, when they're showing up, etc.

And then tracking that, so if one group of contractors has consistent problems, they can be fired.

<comment><USER10> That's a problem in the logistics industry as a whole. Nobody owns anything and everybody has a subcontractor.

<comment><USER11> We have a concept here in Denmark, which directly translated would be "total contractor", which is a person who manages all the different contractors, schedules when they show up and do their work, handles any problems that arise during the project, and all the billing goes through him, so you get a single invoice at the end. I imagine every country has a similar concept, I'm just not aware of the name in English.

<comment><USER12> In (US) English it's "general contractor".

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is an interesting move, a design/manufacturing/retail company buying a labor marketplace company.

Ikea has grown a ton based on having widely appealing products at extremely low prices. Their growth over the past decade has been driven by expanding their physical retail presence on the one-giant-store-per-city model. The store build-out on this model may be done, at least in the US. Still, many potential buyers aren't willing to make the pilgrimage to Ikea because it's far, or simply because you can get an OK entertainment center at Target instead.

Key to Ikea's brand is the memorable in-store experience. If they can match that in their in-home shopping apps and in delivery/assembly/install services, they could grow significantly. If they believe this, expect them to leverage TaskRabbit not just to streamline delivery/install but to offer new Ikea- branded services. A few ideas:

* New apartment? Use our app to pick and place furniture, our designers to get advice, and our people to deliver and install everything.

* Remodel mockup services. Not sure how your kitchen layout will look? Have us block things out using cardboard boxes to you can walk through and feel it out.

* Organization & storage. Have someone go through your basement and inventory everything. Use our app to route each item to donation, resale, or storage. Once stored, app helps you find an item whether it's in your basement (shelf 3, bay 12) or retrievable by delivery-on-request.

<comment><USER14> > The store build-out on this model may be done, at least in the US.

It most definitely is NOT. For instance the nearest Ikea to the Raleigh/Triangle area is over 2 hours away.

There are 24 US states without a single Ikea store.

<comment><USER15> They have recently began a large wave of expansion [1] in the US. Raleigh (Cary) is getting one soon. So is Norfolk, Nashville, Jacksonville, Columbus OH, Milwaukee; they're also beginning to build second (or additional) locations in large metros like Chicago, DFW, Phoenix.

[1] [http://www.ikea.com/us/en/about_ikea/newsroom/expansion_plan...](http://www.ikea.com/us/en/about_ikea/newsroom/expansion_plans)

<comment><USER16> I hope they try more innovative stuff in their new stores. Such as making self-checkout the primary means instead of the alternative. The long lines are often a problem and a single row of the checkout machines has 4-6 machines vs 1 or 2 people run counters. So it would speed things up

They could even extend it to offer more services like ordering delivery and install services.

It also makes a lot of sense in their current system.

<comment><USER17> Ugh, the new, remodeled, Ikea in Seattle got rid of the self checkouts. Checking out now takes at least 15 minutes. Sometimes more. It's awful.

<comment><USER16> Any idea why? I've never seen a store add them and then remove them.

<comment><USER18> Actually, lots of stores are removing self-checkouts nowadays.

They tend to be a lot slower than cashiers, lead to more theft, and few people like to use them anyway.

<comment><USER19> Huh, that's surprising. Two of the three supermarkets near me have phased out cashiers almost entirely.

<comment><USER16> Same, my local grocery store added more machines after an initial phase and there are disproportionately bigger lineups to use them than the cashiers.

Not to mentioned Ontario, where I'm from, just passed new minimum wage laws ($15CAD/hr) and a bunch of retailers are responding by investing in self checkout for the first time.

<comment><USER18> That was the motivation as well when the 9€ minimum wage was passed here, too, but they've removed all of them since.

Cashiers are much faster than self checkout, and you still need to employ one person for every 4 self checkouts to prevent theft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Judging from my Ikea kitchen delivery experience, I fully expect to have some dude with $20k in cabinets tied to the roof of his Honda shop up at people's houses.

<comment><USER21> Holy cow, you spent $20k on Ikea kitchen cabinets?

Edit: Wow, you guys are touchy. For $20k you could get fully custom cabinets from a local shop made with cabinet-grade plywood for a typically-sized kitchen.

<comment><USER22> Ikea kitchens are very nice.

<comment><USER23> They used to be much worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find it interesting how some types of personal service companies seem to resonate with people but a lot don't.

I suspect TaskRabbit never really made it big because of some combination of transaction costs associated with one-off only somewhat standardized tasks and the fact that, presented with a bill to assemble cheap Ikea furniture or to pickup their laundry, most people will decide they'd just as soon do it themselves.

<comment><USER24> My personal theory is that TaskRabbit is too general purpose for people to think to use it. When I am at a bar and want to be at my house, it's really easy for me to think of an app that will solve my problem.

If I don't have time to assemble the elaborate toy train set I bought for my kid, it will probably never occur to me that I could pay someone to drop in and do that task for me, even if I would happily pay someone if they offered.

<comment><USER25> > If I don't have time to assemble the elaborate toy train set I bought for my > kid, it will probably never occur to me that I could pay someone to drop in > and do that task for me, even if I would happily pay someone if they > offered.

That's the kind of problem nobody should ever have in the first place. The whole point is to work together on it, not just to give it. To have some stranger put it together defeats the purpose.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Unless they wanted to dress up in a three piece suit with a top hat and smoke a cigar while they watch the train set being assembled in order to live out some kind of bizarre railroad executive fantasy possibly inspired by too many re-reads of _Atlas Shrugged._

Point is, the purpose of toys is to have fun. I wouldn't regard my example to be any different than spending one's disposable income on a trip to Vegas or a VR headset.

<comment><USER26> Who didn't aspire to be the Fat Controller when watching Thomas the Tank Engine?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> IKEA needs to solve the problem with distance to store or shipping. More than just the "Collection Points" they are building.

They need to partner with a physical brick and mortar store to ship and store product. Similar to what Amazon is going to do with Whole Foods. IKEA needs a partner like Whole Foods where users can pick up their product.

Currently buying anything on IKEA and having it shipped is super costly, and even the collection points don't service small towns/cities.

<comment><USER28> > Currently buying anything on IKEA and having it shipped is super costly

It's definitely a problem. I'm about 3-4 hours away from the nearest Ikea. And it would cost $250 to get any large items: [http://ikeadirectcatalogorder.com](http://ikeadirectcatalogorder.com) (Yes, that is the official site).

Now, by day, I'm an engineer who builds large machines. I have a semi truck or lowboy in my parking lot weekly. I get that freight is expensive - $250 to have a truck to my door isn't great for one skid, but it's not bad either. But at home? I'm used to free shipping, and that's jaw-droppingly expensive.

Ikea is a strongly price-competitive seller. They can't afford to bump all their prices by 20% and offer "free" shipping, because in-store purchasers would mutiny.

<comment><USER27> I know of groups on Facebook where people bundle their purchases and split the shipping cost.

My sister lives in Raleigh and the closest IKEA is Charlotte. It's a 3 hour drive and they are willing to make it once or twice a year when they can. But if they could buy online and have it appear in their local grocery store I'm sure their spending would increase dramatically.

It seems like there is an opportunity for IKEA, or someone else to help get product to these people. And as I showed above, it's not only people in small towns. Raleigh is a big city and yet people have to drive 3 hours to get to the nearest IKEA.

Interestingly, while checking to make sure IKEA hadn't launched in Raleigh, I came across this little biz [http://www.ncmodernfurniture.com/ikea- delivery/](http://www.ncmodernfurniture.com/ikea-delivery/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I tried TaskRabbit once in London, and was put off because there was no way to set a fixed price. It seemed one just had to agree an hourly rate with no limit, which made it impossible to compare.

</comment><comment><USER30> Guesses as to the purchase price? Curious how folks think the founders and VC will make out.

</comment><comment><USER31> Buy a Billy shelf and get it built by TaskRabbit. Is this the reason they bought them?

<comment><USER32> IKEA delivery and assembly has to be a non trivial amount of TaskRabbit revenue

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Makes me think of this IKEA job interview comic

[https://jobmob.co.il/blog/funny-ikea-job-interview- cartoon/](https://jobmob.co.il/blog/funny-ikea-job-interview-cartoon/)

<comment><USER34> This is the first time i saw this; hilarious! :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If Google and Yelp were (supposedly) interested in Task Rabbit, does this mean that they might still be interested in similar companies? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Zaarly.

<comment><USER36> What was it that TaskRabbit had that Zaarly didn't? It seems like a pretty obvious gap for Zaarly to fill to get lined up as bait now that they know that there's a market for acquisition. Did Zaarly focus too much on the ServiceMaster space and not enough on the "white glove" some-assembly-required space that a retailer like Amazon might be interested in?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Thought the fact that you needed to build your own furniture was core to Ikea's business model?

"The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias in which consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created. The name derives from the name of Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA, which sells many furniture products that require assembly."

</comment><comment><USER38> This is pretty neat. Does this mean IKEA will start giving you TaskRabbit discounts for buying IKEA furniture? I'd be into that.

</comment><comment><USER39> I could see this making sense -- TaskRabbit only makes sense if there's economies of scale on the demand side -- I imagine that's hard to generate with the tasks they have on there. I've only ever ordered one TaskRabbit -- and yes, it was to assemble Ikea furniture.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't read instructions when I assemble furniture and I can't think why somebody needs one.

</comment><comment><USER41> Perfect marriage. Our office furnitures are mostly from IKEA and we hired a guy from taskrabbit to assemble two dozen desks and cabinets, it literally took him 3 work days to build them all but the quality was pretty good!

</comment><comment><USER42> "Robots are coming for your job, but only if it is routine/systematic", says <everyone>.

What is more routine/systematic than assembling IKEA furniture?

<comment><USER43> Systematic if it's in a controlled and repeatable environment. Not so systematic if you need a robot to assemble your table in the middle of your living room. You can't achieve Ikea's scale by completely assembling everything in a factory because it increases shipping, storage and logistic costs-- not to mention complicating moving the furniture into your new home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I hope they keep the ability to hire tasks other than furniture assembly! I use Taskrabbit at least every week. They are our operations team!

<comment><USER45> How do you use them? And what prices do you typically pay for the services you use?

<comment><USER44> 95% of tasks are courier pickup/dropoff within the metro Boston area. Traditional couriers require calling, getting quotes etc. Taskrabbit allows me to quickly find a courier (sometimes even within 60 minutes) that's vetted, reviewed, and professional. The app allows me to message/call them and has all my credit card information saved. Everything is done from my phone or browser (note: no paperwork). The experience is always better and cheaper than a 'professional' courier company.

EDIT: I usually pay $40-$90 for a metro Boston pickup/dropoff (about 1-2 hours of driving time). The app has an endless stream of sponsored promo codes (e.g. this week's 'The American Housewife' TV show $50 promo code) that almost always subsidize the service and ensures that I don't pay full price.

Lately, I've been thinking about the opportunity to create an Uber-like service that lowers prices by providing in-ride advertisements. Personally, I wouldn't mind a few ads if it means that I'll pay 50% less for my ride.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Why couldn't Ikea just use TaskRabbit for business when its customers ordered service. Why buy TaskRabbit and ruin it?

</comment><comment><USER47> Don't buy from ikea, infowar says it is funded by divorce lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER48> In which countries/cities does TaskRabbit operate?

</comment><comment><USER49> Good for TaskRabbit. They've worked hard for years

</comment><comment><USER50> TaskRabbit is a perfect adjacency for Ikea because it's not easy to assemble their furniture without help.

</comment><comment><USER51> I don't like how taskrabbit refers to their workers as "rabbits." This is demeaning.

<comment><USER52> FWIW, They are actually called "Taskers" [https://www.taskrabbit.com/become-a- tasker](https://www.taskrabbit.com/become-a-tasker)

<comment><USER51> They started with rabbits, but changed it to taskers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Wow, is this the first React-Native success story? As far as mobile app startups are concerned?

<comment><USER54> Sure. React Native made them have a great business model that covers a niche and solves a real problem. Thanks to React Native they could negotiate a better deal with Ikea. Sigh.

<comment><USER53> Obviously I didn't mean THE contributing factor to their success but it sure as hell saves a lot of money in development costs. ;)</comment></comment></comment>


This is my Twitter algorithm.  What's yours? - <AUTHOR> http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/06/how-to-use-twitter/

<comment><USER3> Personally I only want to follow people that:

a.) I know personally

b.) Tweets in such a way that interests me more than 50% of the time

So I don't actually pay attention to who follows me, and I only currently follow 14 people (though a few more follow me)

What I would say, however, is that I disagree with your "< 3 tweets/day" - <USER2> know what you're aiming at, plenty of people tweet WAY too much (I suspect I do, now and then), but there are plenty of reasons for more than three interesting tweets in a day, and it's quite possible for someone to tweet more than three times a day on a regular basis without it being annoying or pointless.

<comment><AUTHOR> I pass no moral judgment on frequent tweeters. But given that I only follow folks who tweet infrequently, any frequent tweeters quickly dominate my twinbox. So that approach doesn't work for me. I do make exceptions for transient events if they're interesting.

I <3 < 3 tweets per day.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough then :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My algorithm is a little different. I analyze every follow request with what kind of information is this person going to provide--does it add to my personal network, interesting commentary on sports or what is happening in the music, snowboard and mountain scene -- if so I will follow them.

<comment><AUTHOR> The number of new follows I get isn't huge, but it's enough that I won't check each one for content. I'm sure I'm not the only person who wishes that follow mails contained the last 5 tweets from the follower... that'd help things immensely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My algorithm is (notice new follower) -> (ignore). The thing I happen to like about Twitter is that it's curated. I've found plenty of interesting blog posts, videos, etc. by following a handful of people that interested me. Beyond that initial spike in follows when I first joined, I haven't actually followed someone because they started following me.

If I notice that someone is getting frequently RT'ed by some of the people I follow, and the original tweets are actually interesting to me, I start following them. I don't really use any other way of finding followers, and it's worked out fairly well for me. I have a fairly uncluttered twinbox, but I still get a healthy dose of interesting tweets.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's all about maintaining a high signal:noise ratio.

1\. They tweet about my professional interests only - CS, programming, web development/marketing/startups, or finance/trading/econ (and for the next few weeks, the World Cup). Little to no personal stuff. Get a second Twitter account for that.

2\. 4:1 or higher signal:noise ratio. If I see a second tweet about your Starbucks latte being too hot, or that you just finished your daily jog and are sweating, /unfollow. DO. NOT. CARE.

So far that's about it. I don't screen based on follows, followers, tweet frequency, etc., as that has no strong correlation to tweet quality.

</comment><comment><USER7> My constant pruning of spammers leaves me with rather depressing follower stats: <http://i.imgur.com/r3tRN.png>

The same goes for who I follow. I only follow 57 people as of writing, but 99% of them are people I'm truly interested in. I try to never follow more than one or two new people per week, that way I can easily see if they're worth following, or just people I'll end up skipping past.

<http://twitter.com/ashleyw>

</comment><comment><USER8> I also go by the followers/follow > 1, but for N>500\. If a friend of mine follows 100 people but only has 50 followers, I give them a pass. I'll flat out block someone if it's clearly a "social media expert" with follows close to followers over 1000. It's pretty clear that they aren't really following anyone and will unfollow me in 48 hours if I don't help pad their stats.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. Friends always get a bye on the filter, but I'm way more likely to look at someone who has 150 follows and 50 followers than someone with 2k of each (which means they're just playing the follow me/follow you game).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only things I care about are whether their tweets are interesting, informative or entertaining.

I don't follow everyone I know personally, because even those people tend to be boring and spam me with minutiea of their day.

</comment><comment><USER10> 1\. sign up for twitter, be excited I get my first name. 2\. have no time to play on twitter</comment>


Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody as performed by old bits of tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/queens-bohemian-rhapsody-as-performed-by-old-bits-of-tech-20100717/

<comment><USER2> This video may have inspired by James Houston's version of Radiohead's Nude:

<http://vimeo.com/1109226>

Both are wonderful, but I'm partial to the artistic craft in Houston's video.

</comment><comment><USER3> ha. computers can't do triplets apparently.</comment>


Lab-made virus mimics Covid-19 virus - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200721162446.htm <comment><USER2> Maybe they can leak this one as well, and it can win the selection game? ;-)</comment>


Why Crystal is the most promising programming language of 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@DuroSoft/why-crystal-is-the-most-promising-programming-language-of-2018-aad669d8344f <comment><USER2> The author doesn't mention memory management. I gather Crystal does not have a garbage collector, but the author doesn't explain how Crystals memory management compares to C++ or Rust.

<comment><AUTHOR> Crystal uses Boehm GC [https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc](https://github.com/ivmai/bdwgc)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I keep my car if I plan to move to SF? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Probably not if plan to live and go around the city, parking is not that easy in downtown.

I don't own a car, and don't know that many friends that own a car. You get around with BART, MUNI, Lyft, Uber, taxis, biking & walking.

Usually I only need a car when visiting South Bay, and then I take Zipcar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh nice, that is good to know! Thanks so much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It depends on which neighborhood you'll be living in and whether you'll have a garage.

I've had a car the entire time I've lived in SF (8 years), and it's been great (makes it possible to be spontaneous). However, I've always lived in neighborhoods where parking wasn't a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> which neighborhoods did you live in? I'm trying to avoid living anywhere south of Mission.

<comment><USER3> Bernal Heights (south of Mission but great, provided you stay north of Cortland Ave) and Dogpatch (universally great and very close to downtown/SoMa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A lot of places make you pay for a parking space. Usually the low end rates are around $200 a month.</comment>


If you don't get at that rot, you just get more officers like Josh Hastings - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/02/feature/if-you-dont-get-at-that-rot-you-just-get-more-officers-like-josh-hastings/ <comment><USER2> "If you're the kind of police department that would hire someone who attended a Ku Klux Klan meeting, you knew something like this was going to happen..."

 _Really_? Attending one _meeting_ warrants condemnation? Gee, even journalists do _that_.

The Post "forgets" that Senate Democrats voted many times in the past 20 years to place a former Ku Klux Klan _leader_ , and the _top KKK recruiter in his state_ [0], as the #1 Democrat in the line of succession to the U.S. Presidency.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan)</comment>


DOM Snitch: Google's passive in-the-browser reconnaissance tool - <AUTHOR> http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-dom-snitch-our-passive-in.html

<comment><USER2> Gmail stops working if you have DOM Snitch enabled.

I tried it but to be honest did not find it terribly useful. They seem to be using some very simple rules for best practices (like avoiding document.write). But it's nothing more than that (yet)

<comment><USER3> Sites might break when you have DOM Snitch enabled. You can always right click and put it in "Standby" mode, which should solve the problem. There are at least two known issues that can cause this, listed at <https://code.google.com/p/domsnitch/wiki/KnownIssues>. I don't know what might be causing it to break GMail, could be a lab or that it simply was never tested much with GMail.

I wouldn't really call them rules. The tool looks for use of dangerous JavaScript APIs and, when it detects them, it gives you more information, such as stack trace and arguments. That information should help someone determine if a particular use is insecure. Besides that it has some relatively simple logic to determine if a particular usage might be a security bug or not, which is indicated through different colors.

<comment><USER3> FWIW, Gmail does not seem to break for me when I use it there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have an example site they can link that will trigger DOM Snitch to do something? I've been unable to find a site that causes any visible change on the DOM Snitch tab or the offending page.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure you enabled "Passive" or "Invasive" mode and some of the modules?

Everything will be turned off when you install it. Once you change settings all new tabs will open with the new settings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm going to uninstall it. I can't seem to get it to work in both my Dev and Stable channel instances (the table never updates). Also, my beloved middle mouse button behavior has changed. I hope future revisions make it worth while.

</comment><comment><USER6> Tried it today. It slows down google chrome considerably.</comment>


How I Turned a $50 Idea Into a $5000/Month Business - <AUTHOR> http://ericazizian.com/how-i-turned-a-50-idea-into-a-5000month-business-short/

<comment><USER2> So you are basically proud of retrieving money on the back of an underpaid 16 year old developer?

<comment><USER3> The idea behind pinpioneer didn't come from the 16yo. The 16yo is apparently a good programmer and was hired to do the development of this product.

Did you write the Chairman of McDonald's to ask the same question because they have employed millions of teenagers in their business?

<comment><USER2> > Did you write the Chairman of McDonald's to ask the same question because > they have employed millions of teenagers in their business?

Whoever reports great profit and employs people while underpaying them, has to expect the same reaction from me. McDonald's in general is not a company, I have a lot of respect for.

If the author would have reported, that he turned his cheap idea into profit by implementing it by himself, or by paying reasonable wages, I would definitely show more respect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> No proof, so it kinda looks like you are just advertising your app through this blog post with no "real" information.

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks like you took care of a real problem some companies have. Just one question: Where do the origional photo's come from? From other pinterest users? Because I think you said you add a watermark to the images, right? Won't that cause copyright issues?

</comment><comment><USER6> Please don't upvote blogspam.</comment>


'Cyborg' bacteria deliver green fuel source from sunlight - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40975719 <comment><USER2> Discussion of the story is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15071094](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15071094)

Personally I prefer the article linked here, but it doesn't make sense to split the discussion.</comment>


TokBox Brings WebRTC To The Cloud, Enables Multi-Party Video Chats & SIP Interop - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/24/tokbox-launches-new-cloud-based-webrtc-infrastructure-service-enables-multi-party-video-chats-sip-interop/

<comment><USER2> We're really proud of what we've built here, and we're looking for beta testers to help us continue to scale Mantis. Filling in the holes of commodity WebRTC is going to bring some really fascinating face-to-face video apps to the market a lot sooner, and we're excited to have folks come into the playground we're building and play a bit.

If you're interested in using multiparty WebRTC, then please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Ask HN: What indie print magazines do you subscribe to? - <AUTHOR> The two print magazines I am currently subscribed to are The Atlantic and Nautilus.<p>I am wondering are there are any good indie magazines out there with high standard of journalism and storytelling? <comment><USER2> Monocle - [https://monocle.com/](https://monocle.com/) \- and I have been for about 10 years now. Something about it is very pleasing to me.

Beyond that, none, but I do subscribe to [https://www.stackmagazines.com/](https://www.stackmagazines.com/) \- I think it's UK only but you get a different indie magazine each month. None have caught me enough to subscribe to them separately but they have all been intriguing and enjoyable.</comment>


Unredacted suit shows Google's own engineers confused by privacy settings - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/unredacted-suit-shows-googles-own-engineers-confused-by-privacy-settings/ <comment><USER2> > "The current UI feels like it is designed to make things possible, yet > difficult enough that people won't figure it out."

I find it unfortunate they seem to think this was some sort of accidental or unplanned outcome.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to do lighting in 2016? - <AUTHOR> Of all the areas where project hacking has exploded lately, it seems that lighting might be the one with the most new (or at least novel) options.
I'm working on a school bus, but I think this question applies equally well to a stationary home or small office.
Here are some options I'm considering:
* Digital LED strips.  But what kind of micro-controller solution?  Something strong, like a Raspberry Pi?  Or something power-saving, like a NodeMCU?
* Analog LED strips?
* A propriety solution like the Hue?
* "Traditional" LED bulbs?
And then what of the nuances - what's the best way to achieve suitable lighting but without too much workspace glare? <comment><USER2> What are your goals? Stable illuminance (in lux) for your surfaces?

<comment><AUTHOR> You know, it's interesting: with all the possibilities, I'm find that I need to rethink my goals.

Of course, at the outset, I want to be able to be comfortable at night and see the people and things around me.

But, with the proliferation of feature-rich lighting, I'm now finding myself looking into other goals:

* Create interesting mood configurations with color * Communicate data (such as current battery charge for the house) visually * Extenuate the features of workspaces while they are in use * Utilize geographic data to create a sort of "redshift" experience, where the temperature of lighting changes with the time and location

There are probably other goals that I don't even know I have!</comment></comment>


300+ Public Domain Headshots for Games - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/polm/gamefaces <comment><AUTHOR> Sometimes when I participate in a game jam I want character portraits, but I'm no artist and making a face builder or something takes time. So using Google's facial recognition API and the Internet Archive Flickr Stream I made this; I hope it will be useful. I expect to add more images later.

Also, I suppose it's obvious, but while games were the first use that came to mind I suspect this corpus could be useful in other contexts. If there's anything I can do to improve it please let me know.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for making this available. I'm looking forward to using it.</comment></comment>


Why Star Wars should be left to the fans  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14944240

<comment><USER2> >Duchamp's argument is that the spectator is part of the creative act and therefore shares ownership - and authorship - of the artwork with the artist.

I do not agree with this. The work of any artist, no matter how much we feel a connection to it, still belongs to the artist.

I'm willing to bet that had the trilogy originally been like the Blu-Ray edits no one would complain, even though the original was better. It's the attempt to change the memories of my childhood that bothers me. I don't think I'm alone in this feeling.

I can only hope that the studio still has access to the original film and they are preserving it in digital for the day that Lucas passes on.

</comment><comment><USER3> In a world where people expect blockbuster films to be meaningless GCI spectacles, I admire Lucas for having the gall to make a serial adventure series with a moral point, even when it means making unpopular decisions with his fans. Case in point -- the Greedo edit might have pissed off some people, but it had a purpose: making that encounter thematically consistent with the rest of the films in forcing the aggressor to lose. Power to Lucas for caring enough about his films to clean up their loose ends.

More commentary on the films: <http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/38/clones1.php></comment>


The U.S. Is Almost Out of Its Stockpile of N95 Masks, Face Shields, and Gowns - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgezvb/the-us-is-almost-out-of-its-stockpile-of-n95s-masks-face-shields-and-gowns <comment><USER2> The government's actually seizing this kind of stuff from hospitals, and won't tell anyone what they're doing with it [1].

Some hospitals are reporting protective gear from stockpiles that is completely unusable: masks 10 years past its expiration date, masks for children, masks that are rotting [2].

My guess: The government had enough masks / PPE on paper, but never actually checked it was usable. No one intended this to happen, it just sort of fell through the cracks, and all the paperwork said everything was OK. So now the physical masks are needed everywhere, they can't get by anymore on paperwork that doesn't reflect reality.

Thus, they're forced to seize supplies from civilian hospitals so they'll have enough if there's an outbreak in the essential parts of government: soldiers, intelligence, Congress, etc.

And the government decided not to tell anyone they're doing this, because it's a super bad look for them. Because (a), they screwed up really bad (the woman being interviewed in the Youtube link is an HHS inspector general, AFAIK her whole department's one and only job is specifically to catch stuff like this, I don't know, in January when we thought there might be a new disease emerging, or years ago when there was still plenty of time to get new masks slowly over time through a normally functioning supply chain.)

And (b), there's some ethical issues with letting civilian medical workers sicken and die today, so "the people who matter" in government will be protected just in case they start to get sick tomorrow. This seems like the kind of thorny ethical decision that should be made through the public political process, not some secret bureaucratic decisions.

Anyone know how to file an FOIA request to try to force the bureaucrats to tell us what's happening to seized masks?

[1] [https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals-...](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-07/hospitals- washington-seize-coronavirus-supplies)

[2] [https://youtu.be/A4YZxctxh8w?t=159](https://youtu.be/A4YZxctxh8w?t=159)</comment>


Apple: $10B In App Store Sales In 2013, $15B Paid Out To Developers To Date - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/07/apple-10b-in-app-store-sales-in-2013-15b-paid-out-to-developers-to-date/

<comment><USER2> Well my $50 of this was blown on my wife and kids' 3 iPads buying in app upgrades for apps that were supposedly free but weren't and paying cash for apps that supposedly block ads but don't and apps that transfer files that don't work. Oh and games that crash all the time.

I suspect this is the case for a chunk of that $10B.

Really not impressed with the whole ecosystem and will not be investing further in it.

Edit: to clarify. They didn't buy the apps, I did. No in app purchases were made at all by anyone. The reviews are hopeless - unlike amazon for example there are no reviews or ratings of the reviews so you cant determine the difference between idiot reviewers and idiot developers until you've paid for it. Ad blocking is to stop the piles of malicious and idiotic pages forcing popups and apps down on you like its 1998 again. User alexpenny found a reference to this below - thanks: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/06/shady-app- install-ads-are-a...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/06/shady-app-install-ads- are-automatically-redirecting-mobile-users-to-app-store-google-play/)

Edit 2: it appears HN has limited my efforts to defend myself in replies...

Edit 3: this is happening only on iOS devices. I don't have any android devices. This does not happen on any of my desktop machines running Firefox + AdBlock Edge. In fact I get no popups or install attempts at all and never have done.

<comment><USER3> There are plenty of sensible parental controls you can put in place. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

<comment><USER2> I don't enforce parental controls (restrictions). They are too old for that crap.

However I don't want adverts in web pages that have detected an iPad forever redirecting to the app store. Then when you switch back to safari they reload and back to the app store app again unless you are quick.

It's like the bad old days of the Internet again playing banner whack a mole.

<comment><USER4> This has been a recent phenomenon, that as of yesterday started gaining public acknowledgment.

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/06/shady-app-install-ads- are-a...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/06/shady-app-install-ads-are- automatically-redirecting-mobile-users-to-app-store-google-play/)

<comment><USER5> Malicious ads on ad networks are _hardly_ a recent phenomenon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there's two, pretty obvious, ways to look at any marketplace, as the consumer or the producer. Yes, consumers complain about the x,y and z aspect of everything and anything in every marketplace.

But as a creator of software, you can't deny the figures. Compared to all other marketplaces, both business to consumer and business to business, far more revenue flows through Apple's, that's clear to see.

You have to be affected by this as a producer. Although, there's clearly heavy competition and marketing is tough and expensive, there's a lot of money that can technically be made.

I suspect the total Android marketplace revenues are accelerating quite hard also, but this underlines another thing I'm beginning to see with marketplaces, B2C can work, B2B seems much, much harder.

I've seen in two B2B marketplaces, Atlassian's [0] and the Google Apps Marketplace [1] that the majority of customers of the core products stick to that core product and avoid third-party products from the respective marketplaces (that's a gut feeling for GAM, there are some figures for Atlassian I saw end of last year confirming that). I seem to remember Atlassian saying about $10M had been paid out to devs up to last October.

Yes, I know that businesses have far higher thresholds to trust third-party additions, but I can't help feeling that if you're creating a product whose main channel will be a marketplace, to favour B2C over B2B. I'm always saying to think about B2B sales more, the margins are way better, generally, but this is the first exception I've found.

The AWS marketplace [2] is something of a hybrid of the two modes. Anyone have much experience of it? I've never used it myself.

[0] [https://marketplace.atlassian.com/home/confluence](https://marketplace.atlassian.com/home/confluence)

[1] [https://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/](https://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/)

[2] [https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace](https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace)

</comment><comment><USER7> $15B paid out to developers, while the ecosystem is the one what keeps an $500B company on the top - this does not seem to be that much.

<comment><USER8> $15B for devs since the ecosystem was created (with most of the growth recent) does not compare to the lifetime value investors place on the entire company.

$15B is two aircraft carriers. In less time to build one.

<comment><USER9> you just compared aircraft carriers and a electronic/software company.

<comment><USER8> It's not a complete comparison, just comparing the impacts of deca-billion capital expenditures.

But you're right they're completely different in a lot of ways. Apple "builds" more than one aircraft carrier a year (in total cap ex spending), the US Government takes ~10 years to spend the same money to build one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The rise of in-app purchase seems like quite a threat to Apple's ecosystem. If the app is free and cross-platform, and you can buy the in-game currency on whatever device, Android or iOS, where'd the lock-in go?

And since pretty much the whole top-grossing list is free with in-app- purchase, that is definitely where most of this money is.

<comment><USER11> If the cost of In App currency is the same between iOS and Android what is the incentive for the user to put down their iOS device, pickup an Android device to make the purchase, and then switch back?

Even if the developers segment their customers and make In App currency "cheaper" on Android because Android users have a reputation of not paying as much as iOS users it still sounds like a pain in the ass for marginal gain on the end users part.

I can't imagine this happening often enough to threaten platform lock in or meaningfully skew platform monetization statistics.

<comment><USER10> I'm talking about the kind of platform lock-in where your next phone needs to be an iPhone because your last one was, or where you buy an iPad because you have an iPhone and you don't have to buy the apps again. That's the kind of lock-in that is threatened by platform neutral IAP. You play Candy Crush on your iPhone when you are out, but when you are home you play on the cheap Android tablet you got because it has a bigger screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Next year Android is poised to have a _1.9 billion_ user base [1], or roughly three times that of iOS, and the difference is only going to get bigger as Android with its higher penetration reaches new markets.

I think Apple's ecosystem will inevitably fall to second place in 2 years time, when all developers wake up to the fact that Android will be by far the world's largest platform (and yes, it should be better paid, too, by then, as it already almost caught up with Apple in revenue/app).

[1]- [http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/07/gartner-2-5b-pcs-tablets- an...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/07/gartner-2-5b-pcs-tablets-and-mobiles- will-be-shipped-in-2014-1-1b-of-them-on-android/)

<comment><USER13> From what I've seen, iOS users shell out much more money than android users. Is there any poll or survey suggesting that android users are paying more for apps and IAPs?

<comment><USER14> As of November, Android developer revenue/dollar was $.19 to the dollar compared to Apple.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the- differen...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-difference- in-developer-revenue-between-android-and-ios-2013-11)

Facebook ad revenue on iPhones yields a 1,800% ROI over Android. And Facebook ads on Android offer _a negative ROI overall_.

[http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/16/facebook-ad-profit-a- stagg...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/16/facebook-ad-profit-a- staggering-1790-more-on-iphone-than-android/)

So the Android ecosystem still looks very bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What does this work out to per developer? An average? Is there still a way to make significant money selling apps?

<comment><USER16> There's a way to make significant money with free apps. You just need a decent idea.

<comment><USER17> That's is the opposite of what one usually hears on HN.

"Ideas are a dime a dozen, its the execution that counts stupid...."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Look how awesome apple is, and to argue about that, I'll just show how much money it's passing around !

I don't really understand how relevant that is to the HN crowd, really.

People already have a $400 iPhone, with an expensive data plan, of course they'll buy whatever it's compatible with.

If you sell glitter, there's no limit but the stars. People will buy anything if it's under $10, so no surprise if so many people have iPhones.

What I'll always criticize, is the real amount of innovation that surrounds the iPhone and the software that it runs. Of course it pays developers, but an iPhone is just a very small wirelessly internet connected computer, with a dedicated software store, and a short battery life. The software is the same if not worse. The only difference is that Apple just had a business model for an app market, and to be honest, compared to what freeware and open source already offers, it doesn't feel attractive.

<comment><USER18> In what world is 9-10 hours of active use "short" battery life?

<comment><USER9> yeah try that with a 2 year old battery</comment></comment></comment>