10 Reasons Why Documentation is a Startup Secret Sauce - <AUTHOR> http://foundread.com/2008/04/08/10-reasons-why-documentation-is-a-startup-secret-sauce/ <comment> ten-seven We have a concept we call our "Bus Number." It's the number of people that know how to do what you do, or have been briefed on what you're doing, so that if you're run over by a bus, they can pick up what you're doing. It's a grim concept, but it highlights another point: what happens during the startup period should a key person fall ill, or die? Good documentation could save the shop and make sure your dream lives, at least for a while longer.

<comment><USER2> <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TruckNumber>

.............

Anyway, documentation is all well and good when it takes the form of a "how to". That seems to be what the author is getting at. But there's just nothing worse than reading or writing documentation that consists of proposed method signatures, object structures, or anything in any way related to UML.

<comment><USER3> He's referring to business process documentation, which is different than code documentation. Coding (or design in general) is different than operations and can't be documented as precisely. It's the difference between "Here's what I did" and "Here's what to do"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What do you guys use for documentation, btw? I used DocBook for Hecl, but man is it ever a PITA. It's very, very, very, verbose, and even if that verbosity does give you a lot of flexibility, I'm not sure it's worth it in terms of docs that don't get written because it takes so long.

<comment><USER5> A wiki would probably work well. A Google Site perhaps?

<comment><USER4> It might - but I'm curious about what people have actually used successfully and any limitations things they've liked about a particular system. Maybe it's worth it's own post...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is basically the rational behind the E-Myth. Your business is not just another job you do. It's a self-sustaining entity that you create.

</comment><comment><USER6> Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't document what they did. If you are unable to take the time to leave a trail of your thought processes and reasons then the understanding you claim to have about your domain is suspect. The only exception is if it's throw away code.

<comment><USER7> Most of my code is "throw-away" code :|

In the sense that even if it's about the best code I can produce right now, in a couple months I'll have learned so much and improved the rest of the system incrementally so much that my formerly-best code I will need to throw away (as in refactor or even rewrite).

<comment><USER8> Document it anyway! Although it might seem like a waste of time to write about something that will change, the fact is that _all_ software is potentially throw-away code. That's the "soft" in software - you can and should change it if it needs to change. If didn't document things that might change, you'll either never document or you will be loathe to change code that has been documented. Instead, just look at both the code and the documentation as a working sketch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice article. Author doesn't mention one key point: your documentation MUST BE SINCERE. Nothing is more hilarious (and will derail you faster) than some B.S. mission statement on the front door.</comment>


GM closing all operations in Oshawa, Ontario: sources - <AUTHOR> https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/gm-closing-all-operations-in-oshawa-ont-sources-1.4191935 <comment><USER3> Governments should wise up when the next bailout happens. Seek collateral on the company via shares or some other valuable goods that are not easy to shed. Enforce some board member, etc.

For all the criticism Chinese tech companies get, the main control the Chinese government has is by being the largest shareholder of said companies. If the company does something that jeopardizes the stability of society, just enforce control. Every sizable Chinese company has a party secretary for the very same reason.

<comment><USER4> Just take a look at British Leyland to see what happens when the state gets involved in car manufacture.

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

The best option is to let uncompetitive businesses fail and concentrate on things the private sector can't do well.

<comment><USER5> > The best option is to let uncompetitive businesses fail and concentrate on > things the private sector can't do well.

This is such an Economics 101-style response, I'm not even sure how to address it.

When the plant stops production, it's not only the 2500 people who lose their jobs, it's also the auxiliary economy of parts suppliers, logistics networks and food and drink businesses that are affected and may have to shut down as well. That creates a negative multiplier effect that pushes economic activity down further. Not to mention the long term impact of lower tax receipts, lower property values.

You can't snap your fingers and replace the underpinnings of an entire community overnight via the magic of the "free market". Another company will only accept the costs of relocating there if the government starts offering tax incentives and the like to make it worth their while.

I agree that we need a better system, especially when companies can simply move when it's convenient. But manufacturing is a strategically important industry and governments are willing to pay to keep that industry at home.

<comment><USER6> It _is_ Econ 101. Governments can do and pay whatever they want but the parent comment will still be correct.

<comment><USER7> Being correct doesn't make you right.

<comment><USER8> I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Millions in gov't subsidies, a major bailout in 2009 that saved their company, non-stop threats of closure and ongoing clawbacks of manufacturing. And in the end... up and out.

Obviously it is GM's prerogative and can do as they please but it is time for politicians to stop falling for the folly. Just like your stocks and mutual funds - diversify your industries and don't rely on one big player.

<comment><USER9> The North American auto industry essentially held the Canadian and US governments for ransom in the 2008-2009 financial crisis, "bail us out or we'll go belly up completely, and look how many people will be unemployed!".

<comment><USER10> We should have let it happen.

That money could have been funneled into social services instead of propping up industries.

You played and lost, you don't get my tax dollars.

<comment><USER11> "have been funneled into social services"

Thos jobs pay for the social services of many, and if GM and Ford went kaput, it would wipe out the governments ability to pay for those services.

Now - I'm not saying it's the right thing to subsidize, but in a 'subsidize or collapse' situation, that is the reality.

A corporation has many stakeholders: execs, staff, buyers, suppliers, investors, debtors, and then all the ancillary people who benefit independently - they're all in a power struggle to share in the surpluses.

If a company is facing legit collapse, and the investors are truly willing to bite the bullet, it's because they don't think their is incentive there for them. The surpluses generated may actually be going into the other entities in the power equation: just because investors own the profits does not mean that profits represent the big chunk of surpluses.

My ex-neighbour was a long-tim plant worker, he earned quite a lot, granted he was senior - those are in fact plumb jobs that often pay way above others when you factor healthcare, retirement etc.. Also consider low turnover - <USER2> people change jobs every few years and lose a few months pay. When you work in an auto plant, for a bank, for the government etc. the stability factor is a real economic benefit you can calculate.

It's hard to tell if companies are bluffing or not, but in many cases they are not - and it illustrates really where the surpluses are and it's not with them.

There's a big Boeing 777 business case that's used in B-School for accounting, and it basically demonstrates that the project is kind of a loser for them, and they should not invest. But the government came along with incentives, making it worthwhile. It's not a paradox, it's just a lesson in who profits from what and how.

<comment><USER12> Err... I believe Ford didn't want the bailout money. Not sure why you tossed them in here.

I am totally in favor of letting bankruptcy courts do the job they are best at. All those assets don't just go away, they are put to better use.

<comment><USER11> Ford is just an example of a 'big company' that might go bankrupt.

A bailout/subsidy for a company is different than a bankruptcy situation.

You can be assured that in a bankruptcy, the factory will probably close, and it's workers laid off. It doesn't matter i some assets are sold off, significant economic activity will dissapear in almost all cases. It's usually better for the economy for a company to survive than not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> GM's statement from today: [https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content...](https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2018/nov/1126-gm.html)

"Today, GM is continuing to take proactive steps to improve overall business performance including the reorganization of its global product development staffs, the realignment of its manufacturing capacity and a reduction of salaried workforce."

...

Increasing capacity utilization – In the past four years, GM has refocused capital and resources to support the growth of its crossovers, SUVs and trucks, adding shifts and investing $6.6 billion in U.S. plants that have created or maintained 17,600 jobs. With changing customer preferences in the U.S. and in response to market-related volume declines in cars, future products will be allocated to fewer plants next year.

Assembly plants that will be unallocated in 2019 include:

        Oshawa Assembly in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
        Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly in Detroit.
        Lordstown Assembly in Warren, Ohio.

Propulsion plants that will be unallocated in 2019 include:

        Baltimore Operations in White Marsh, Maryland.
        Warren Transmission Operations in Warren, Michigan.

</comment><comment><USER14> My former SO lives in Oshawa and I spent a lot of time there.

I got to know a few people that worked at the factory. GM announced they were going to pull out of Oshawa more than 5 years ago. They've been operating on borrowed time. Nobody there will be surprised at the news. From what I recall it was mostly impala and camaro assembly happening there.

The GO train takes you right into Toronto, there's no doubt in my mind most of the laidoff will find work.

</comment><comment><USER15> The most shocking part of this to me is that they are cutting the Volt? There was so much R&D in that car and it's such an amazing vehicle that I'm shocked. Everybody I know that has one LOVES it.

They just need to do a better job of advertising it. It's not advertised AT ALL. The only people who know about it know about it from word of mouth and research.

<comment><USER16> I see no evidence of that in the article posted, nor Google News results. The Volt is not made in Oshawa either.

<comment><USER17> The linked story is just a slice of the larger story, obviously tailored to be more significant for a Canadian audience. But the larger story [Reuters report] involves a major restructuring.

"GM is expected to announce it will cut the Chevrolet Volt, Impala and Cruze, the Cadillac CT6 and XTS, and the Buick LaCrosse"

More info at [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-restructuring/gm-to- cu...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-restructuring/gm-to-cut-car- production-in-north-america-halt-some-models-source-idUSKCN1NV1NB)

<comment><USER18> The linked story seems to have been updated to remove references to the Volt being cut:

"The company also plans to stop building several models now assembled at those plants, including the Chevrolet Cruze, the Cadillac CT6 and the Buick LaCrosse."

<comment><USER17> Yep, they updated it and removed all that specificity since it was attributed to an anonymous source. However, it doesn't mean it's not true yet. Until details come out, I think they're going to try to control the message tightly to make it sound like a possible ending of The Volt is not a regressive move. Or they'll keep throwing money down that well.

And yes, it's not like they're moving back toward the steam engine, but in the short run it might make sense to kill the Volt and do something else. But the optics of it will look bad. Think Reuters got tripped up by the "increase investment in electric and autonomous vehicles and connected vehicle technology" line because it's broad and potentially conflicting.

Here's a selection of top "Chevy Volt" headlines for the past few years:

2015: "Yes the 2016 Chevy Volt Will be Profitable."

2016: "GM Will Lose Money on the Chevy Bolt to Make Money On Other Models"

2017: "GM trims battery costs, aims to make profitable EVs"

2018: "GM races to build a formula for profitable electric cars."

In the larger sense, GM's leadership has been sending some weird messages talking about a future they don't fully understand. Spouting things like blockchain, autonomous, ride sharing, and future profitability being tied to selling customer information. You know, all the apparently popular contemporary trends.

They're a car company.

<comment><USER19> Been following gm closely for a while and never heard mention of blockchain. All I could find was this - [https://www.coindesk.com/bmw-ford-gm-worlds- largest-automake...](https://www.coindesk.com/bmw-ford-gm-worlds-largest- automakers-form-blockchain-coalition) . But there's like 50 companies in that coalition... So it seems weird you would say blockchain first. The other stuff doesn't seem misplaced at all, and future profitability also seems down on the company since they are currently profitable albeit their fcf could use improving.

<comment><USER17> You raise some good points.

When I see that word mentioned in any business I get skeptical, especially one where there's a classical product involved, like bananas. Or cars. In this case I strongly believed it was used for adding feathers to their plume and so I used it in a mocking tone. Radio Bloomberg (broadcasts) mentioned the blockchain line with some skepticism for awhile and so it stuck in my head.

None of these parroting futurisms make sense for GM. Their largest customers are fleets like Enterprise Rent a Car, who buy massive numbers of new models before consumers can get to them, assuring delivery numbers. If they compete with them for rentals or ride-sharing, what if ERAC orders a bunch of Fords next year? They'd be crazy to endanger this relationship. GM should stick to making cars and messaging to that effect.

Anyhow, I stand firmly by how I interpreted this announcement. My overall opinion on GM, however, is probably very ignorant and naive.

"A GM spokesperson told Jalopnik over the phone: "We are ending production of the Volt March 1, 2019.""

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most people posting here say that the US/Canadian government should interfere here. I'd like to present a different point of view: I am relatively young, from the Netherlands and started my job a few years ago. I do not really remember the 2008/2009 bailouts. I have some savings, and I invested mostly in a Dutch ETF, which lead to a nice mix of tech, finance, Food Industry and a big oil company.

I invested a small portion of my money in GM because I did not have a car manufacturer in my portfolio, and Tesla seemed hyped to me. I considered that GM is making a profit, betting on electric cars and already has an affordable model on the roads that could actually benefit society.

I do not care wheter GM production is in the US, Canada, Mexico or China, as long as the employees are treated fairly. In fact, I would think it is unfair that GM makes a choice that will lead to lower dividends and is held back by something that happened prior to the moment that I invested in it.

<comment><USER21> Maybe this will annoy some people but as someone who lives in the GTA, this attitude just sounds like you are saying your investment portfolio is more important than the thousands of people losing their jobs just before christmas.

I know there are big important things to discuss here (such as the bailout that we all know isn't being paid back and overall manufacturing) but my first emotional response is a certain finger pointed in your general direction.

<comment><USER22> At the base of things, though, GM is looking to make money. If they lose money by staying in Ontario, they do no one any good (not the taxpayers who foot the bill, not the government that transfers money from the taxpayers to the corporation, not the people being paid by the corporation).

The bailout presumes a degree of economic health in the region (and perhaps the country) that may not be there. Being bailed out means the employees are on borrowed time.

Money is the bottom line. Failure is necessary. Jobs are a byproduct of consumption and are not a 'right'. If GM pulls out, there will be other places those employees can seek work. If there aren't other places they can get jobs, perhaps Canada should reconsider some of their business regulations (as regulation suppresses numbers of new businesses).

<comment><USER23> No, society is the bottom line. Money is an imperfect medium for regulating society, and government should step in when it doesn't work.

<comment><USER22> Depending on where you're from, the _individual_ is the bottom line. Money mediates individual exchange. In the US the Fed has a very specific role. Bailing out companies is not actually part of that.

In fact, if the Constitution were taken seriously any more, someone would have noticed the bit about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I suppose this is Canada we're talking about, so the above doesn't mean anything in this context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Its interesting to see so many here have the opinion that the subsidies were wasted and the governments should have let GM fail, not spend taxpayer dollars to bail them out.

And yet, most on HN seem perfectly happy to give Amazon huge tax breaks to setup in NY, which is _exactly_ the same thing.

<comment><USER25> It's not exactly the same, though. Bailout uses the money that government already has, and that could be used on something else. Tax break is using the money that you don't have yet - and, crucially, will only have if the company actually is there!

<comment><USER26> Not necessarily, the government might not have that money, they will likely raise debt to do so. It is technically not the tax payers money

<comment><USER27> In the end, either taxpayers pay for it, or all holders of the currency of equivalent instruments do (through inflation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Slowing sales of pickup trucks and sedans -- Silverado and Impala in particular.

Ford recently announced ceasing production of all sedans in favor of SUV's. GM said it wouldn't follow suit but it looks like the market might be dictating terms.

<comment><USER28> Oddly enough, the Equinox uses the same V6 engine as the Impala and Cadillac. I guess it comes down to how you use the vehicle and not how you power it. The 3.6L V6 VVT is a good engine too -- reliable, 300+ hp, 30+ mpg hwy, etc. Built in Detroit even though the vehicles are assembled in Oshawa.

This shutdown is a bellwether, not just a cost move.

<comment><USER29> Very much off topic: 3.6l is >2 times more cylinder volume than useful in >95% of scenarios.

Pick your favorite reason to minimise your crude oil consumption. Global warming and not subsidising oil despots are two good ones to me.

<comment><USER30> Cars are very expensive ($30k on average), and their production is a huge use of crude oil and water and electricity. What you seem to be advocating (and maybe I'm reading this wrong) is that people buy multiple cars, one small fuel efficient everyday driver, and one bigger more powerful vehicle for the 5% of the time they need something bigger than a Fiat. Humans are heavy, cargo is heavy, trailers are heavy, and furniture is big. A 1.8L engine in a subcompact can't always support those use cases.

I don't know too many people who could afford a $20k car to drive to work and then a $40k truck just to park in their garage 95% of the time. And if they can, they're buying a BMW instead.

<comment><USER31> What do you require a 3.6L for? A 1.8L will move all the cargo you care to. A 2.5L tows my 1200lb camper over high mountain passes. A big engine is really only a _must_ if you are towing something north of a ton, as far as I'm aware.

People tend to buy more engine than they need, and 1.8L's are more powerful than ever. And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars. We survived.

<comment><USER28> _And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars..._

My first car, 45 years ago!, was a '66 Chevrolet Impala with a standard, small block, run of the mill, 283cu in. (4.6L) engine. The motor was blown so I bought a used one for $75 and swapped it out myself. Took about 6 weeks because I had never done it before.

The 283 was rated between 200 and 345hp. It was my daily driver for school (hardly a sports car) until markvdb's "oil despots" tripled the price of gas. I sold the Impala and bought a Volvo 144S with a 1.8L 4 cyl. engine.

Neither car (or engine) was ever able to get better than 25+ mpg and the Volvo made you very aware of how much power you had available.

<comment><USER32> You really can't compare HP ratings of cars from that era with modern cars. The old ratings were generally "gross brake horsepower" which was what you got at the crankshaft on a dyno with all the auxiliaries (oil pump, water pump, alternator, fuel pump, fan, etc) disconnected and powered separately and with special exhaust and intake arrangements, eg headers and no air filter. Modern HP is usually "SAE net horsepower" which is measured in almost an as installed in a vehicle configuration. Gross BHP significantly inflates the number.

See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power)

<comment><USER28> Thanks for the link DavidGould. Learnt me some I didn't know.

The '66 Impala was a heavy car and I didn't purchase it for racing. I did put a heavy duty clutch plate into it when I replaced the engine. It did burnouts just fine until I snapped the welds on the rear differential and sent the universal joint banging upward against the bottom of the car. Learned a little bit about welding, u-joints and spider gears on that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm curious what the impact will be for GM tech workers. IIRC they hired a bunch of software devs in Markham and Oshawa over the last few years

</comment><comment><USER34> For those critical of the 2008-2009 bailouts, GM or any other automaker with manufacturing operations in North America going belly up would have contributed to an even larger disaster. It's not just the main plants that would be affected, but also the entire supply chain - from mom & pop shops up to the big component manufacturers located in clusters across the country, not to mention GE, National Instruments, Intel, and myriad manufacturing-focused startups.

<comment><USER35> Most people have a very simplistic view of the GM bailout, it was not like the bailout of the banks. GM was allowed to fail, shareholders and senior creditors took a loss in favor of unsecured creditors (Union Pensions were stuffed with GM funny-money bonds). The feds completely disregarded the law and simply did what they thought was politically expedient (bailing out the unions).

What should have happened: GM Fails, GM assets inevitably acquired by someone else. Business involves risk, taxpayers shouldn't subsidize that risk.

<comment><USER27> A voice of reason. Thank you.

Yes, liquidation is the answer when the patient is insolvent and bankrupt.

In a systemic crisis, however, our bankruptcy courts cannot move fast enough. That is a problem that needs to be tackled, otherwise scared politicians will always have enough time to reach for bailouts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What other auto companies manufacture in Ontario? Toyota?

Its so awful when you lose your job because the job goes away. So many people are going to have to retrain.

<comment><USER37> Ford has a plant in Oakville.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> About time… I never understood this car. It was way overpriced for the market, and didn't seem to offer many advantages over the Prius.

</comment><comment><USER39> I understand Ontario has very high electrical rates and labor rates. There is also the issue of the Federal Governments new Cap and Trade policy although I don't know if GM received a waiver. Did these things maybe cause GM to close the plant?

<comment><USER40> The cap and trade system was done away with by our current government in a populist bid to "reduce the price of gas" (and unsurprisingly, gas prices didn't change with the removal of the program).

Our Hydro prices are about middle-of-the-road in North America. We have a tiered-use system that sees prices as high as 13.2¢/kWh On-Peak (during the day) and 6.5¢/kWh Off-peak (at night), with an average around 8-9¢/kWh IIRC. Far from expensive, but when everyone compares our prices to Quebec (one of the cheapest in NA and is something around 4¢/kWh average IIRC) it seems astronomical.

Labour rates generally aren't too crazy either, we do have a relatively high minimum wage of $14/hr, but when unions start to run the show and wages become "competitive" it starts getting out of hand. Cami is in my hometown and IIRC the average employee takes home something around $35/hr. Toyota in Woodstock and Cambridge are over $35/hr at their highest rate, even though they _aren 't_ unionized, but they still have to pay competitive wages or they'd never have enough employees. A lot of the feeder plants (i.e. the places that make components; engines, doors, etc) are in the $20-25/hr range and they have an astronomically high turnover rate, nobody wants to do the work unless there's huge money involved. I'm wondering if _this_ is the reason; why pay thousands of ungrateful employees >$30/hr for work that can be done for <$10/hr virtually anywhere else on the planet? Even by the time you factor in the costs of shipping vehicles it's gotta be thousands of dollars cheaper per- vehicle. It can't be easy to justify the cost to shareholders unless the (monetary) benefits massively outweigh the cons

<comment><USER41> > and they have an astronomically high turnover rate, nobody wants to do the > work unless there's huge money involved.

Maybe because Ontario has ridiculous housing costs?

Id be happy to work for $15/hr if I could get a decent 3 bedroom house for $70-80k.

I mean seriously mortgage costs + $11/hr on top and I would be happy.

Yet even somewhere like London it will cost 400k+ and just forget about Toronto.

<comment><USER42> > decent 3 bedroom house for $70-80k

These seem like unusual expectations.

Are there any decent areas anywhere in the country with these kinds of prices? That seems abnormally low. Also a $15 wage single income isn't supposed to support a 3bd house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Since Elon Musk is Canadian, maybe Tesla will buy the operations and start building Teslas in Oshawa?

<comment><USER44> He's from South Africa, IIRC.

<comment><USER43> He has Canadian citizenship (along with South Africa and US) and went to college at Queen's University in Canada.

<comment><USER44> Interesting. You don't encounter people who hold triple citizenship all that often here in the US.

<comment><USER42> Elon Musk inherited Canadian citizenship from his mother, and it was also what allowed him to move to North America.

(source: Ashlee Vance's bio)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: My event has been a success. - <AUTHOR>

My event is over and seems to have been a real success.  You can see some of the twitter stream from the event here:
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23mathsjam
Thanks to everyone from HN who sent good wishes and helpful comments and suggestions. <comment><USER2> Clicky: <https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23mathsjam></comment>


Reducing power consumption for background tabs - <AUTHOR> https://blog.chromium.org/2017/03/reducing-power-consumption-for.html <comment><USER2> Some specifics here -- [https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/background...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/background_tabs)

 _\- Each background tab has a time budget (in seconds) for running timers in the background._

 _\- A page is subjected to time budget limitations after 10 seconds in the background._

 _\- A timer task is allowed to run only when the time budget is non- negative._

 _\- After a timer has executed, its run time is subtracted from the budget._

 _\- The budget continuously regenerates with time (currently set to a rate of 0.01 seconds per second). Note that this budget regeneration rate can be tweaked as Chrome collects more data about throttling behavior._

This still seems very "breaky" for apps that haven't utilized WebSockets or WebRTC for "real-time" updates and rely on polling, unless I'm missing something.</comment>


FutureOfTheBook.org - Ambitious or Disappointing? - <AUTHOR> http://futureofthebook.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been asking myself for a while what the future of learning / reading / media is, and I can find very few good examples of truly novel thought.

It appears that most of the current ideas revolve about making electronically accessible that which already exists IRL. There are eBook for Books, OpenCourseWare for College Courses, and Khan Academy for High School - but it seems like very few people are trying to fundamentally change the: 1 to N model of school.

I'm most inspired by Bret Victor of <http://WorryDream.com> and his KillMath and similar visualizations / interaction designs. This seems like the best attempt I've seen thus far for truly novel learning tools that aren't just copies of standard materials.

I wanted to see if anyone else shares this viewpoint and if there are any other resources I should be looking at.</comment>


Douglas Coupland: A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-radical-pessimists-guide-to-the-next-10-years/article1750609/singlepage/#articlecontent

<comment><USER2> Alternate title (and quick summary): Douglas Coupland hits midlife.</comment>


Apple App Store Principles and Practices - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/ <comment><USER2> Their comparison of other apps in the store is quite disingenuous.

Yes, you technically have other music players, but they're not as integrated into the OS as Apple Music is. We picked Apple Music for this reason, even though it's a rather bad UI.

Same with Maps. Not that I want to give Google more of my location data but others that want to use Google Maps as their default maps app, can't right now without all kinds of third party hacks.

So yes, the competition does exist, but due to deliberate actions BY APPLE to stifle their APIs to keep them heavily restricted, these apps really aren't first class citizens on the OS.

I largely favor Apple's approach of minimizing data sharing, but their apps are often inferior to the third party alternatives. They should use their app store stick to instead have a MFi-like certification program for data. If you want to be a first-party app for Maps, Mail, locations, etc, you have to demonstrate that you won't abuse that data, and have the right infrastructure to protect it.

Update: Look at web browsing. All those browsers use WKWebKit, so they're all actually just Safari. And Apple's fine with telling the public that they have choice here. That's just blatantly false, and I don't see how their legal team allowed them to make such a statement.

<comment><USER3> Yep, same goes for Mail and Safari.

Sure you can install other browsers. But if you want to have website links open in Firefox or whatever, that relies on every single app that links come from implementing their own capability to launch a different browser for links (most of them never will), and then you have to set the default in each app.

Having done a stint on Android, I miss being able to pick default handlers for everything.

<comment><USER4> and Apple Maps. I was very excited to get turn-by-turn directions while bicycling via Apple Watch; Apple Maps frequently sends me down freeways if it thinks I'm driving, or the wrong way on 1-way streets if it thinks I'm walking.

If the Watch platform was open enough that any Maps app could "snap in," this situation would be just fine. But as long as Apple apps are first-class citizens and everyone else has to deal with limited APIs, I'm not inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt on this.

This extends to hardware too, incidentally. It's literally impossible for competitors to make earbuds or styluses that can compete with the Airpods or Apple Pencil, because those use private/secret APIs. Not cool.

<comment><USER5> And yet there are many Maps, Airpods and Apple Pencil competitors.

And in the case of hardware you are basically asking for the iPhone to be made into an open platform that anyone must be able to integrate with.

Pretty bizarre and definitely something that would have major implications for the entire industry.

<comment> munk-a I mean, Apple's advertising is stating that it's an open platform with free competition, so either their idiots or lying - they can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER6> I searched the entire article for the word "open". It appeared 13 times. But:

One of those times was "Open the App"

One was referring to using Safari to get to the "open internet"

The other 11 were invisible labels to open the collapsible divs.

<comment> munk-a One blurb was...

> Developers also receive free marketing opportunities through our store > design, including the new Today editorial feature, personalized > recommendations, search tools, top lists, and social marketing. All this > helps to support the millions of successful apps on the App Store.

And then...

> A store that welcomes competition.

> We believe competition makes everything better and results in the best apps > for our customers.

> We also care about quality over quantity, and trust over transactions. > That's why, even though other stores have more users and more app downloads, > the App Store earns more money for developers. Our users trust Apple — and > that trust is critical to how we operate a fair, competitive store for > developer app distribution.

<comment><USER6> Was either blurb incorrect?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They still didn't address Spotify's main complaint: That Apple Music can charge less because they don't have to pay a 30% commission to Apple. So they have an unfair advantage of being able to charge 30% less even if their costs are identical.

Also Apple's use of private APIs gives them an unfair advantage. So sure, there are competing apps in each category, but they can't ever be as good as the Apple app.

<comment><USER8> Yes. The fact that I still cannot listen to Spotify directly from my Apple Watch is so frustrating. I don't want to give in and switch to Apple Music, but it gets more tempting every day.

<comment><USER9> > The fact that I still cannot listen to Spotify directly from my Apple Watch > is so frustrating.

I don't see how this is Apple's fault, though: Spotify should be able to write an app for watchOS.

<comment><USER8> According to Spotify, they were not able to start developing an app until recently. They've finally released an app, but all it does is control the music playing from your phone.

Source: [https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/](https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/)

<comment><USER5> Overcast managed to do this back in September last year. Hardly recently:

[https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/17/overcast-apple-watch- redesign...](https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/17/overcast-apple-watch-redesign- siri-shortcuts/)

<comment><USER10> The Overcast app can either control your phone or play podcasts that are "synced" to it, i.e., loaded onto the phone. At least from my reading of the WatchKit documentation, audio files playing _from the watch_ must still be stored locally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > 84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple.

That's just false, every developer has to pay 99 USD per year to be able to publish apps. Even if you only publish free apps.

<comment><USER12> You also need to buy an Apple computer to use Apple dev tools.

Apple prices out the lower class and third world countries from developing. They are actively contributing to income disparity.

Edit, anyone want to argue the opposite? The upfront cost to develop for Apple is terrible for the lowest income developers.

<comment><USER13> Absurd. If you wish to be a competitive farmer, you need a tractor. If you wish to be a competitive auto mechanic, you need a set of expensive tools and parts. If you want to be a competitive mobile app developer, you need a Mac. Every trade has a cost-of-entry.

EDIT: further, porting Xcode to another platform would be non-trivial. With the addition of Marzipan, you can forget about Xcode being on any third-party platform.

<comment><USER14> I dont think your analogy holds up. To farm, you can buy any decent tractor. You can install your own tires, have the freedom to repair how you see fit etc.

A better analogy is developing Apple Apps is like trying to farm where BigCo forces you to buy their expensive tractors with no option to use anything else.

Or to use your mechanic example, imagine BMWs can only be worked if you use their proprietary tools that nobody can make.

<comment><USER15> And mechanics all over the world must buy BMW tools if they want to work on BMWs for people that own BMWs. Nobody is preventing anyone from working on cars, just BMWs. And the reason is that when you get BMW service, you expect BMW standards. Don't work on BMWs if you don't want to pay for the tools.

<comment><USER16> I actually think this is an important point, as highlighted by someone else commenting "I've been programming for a decade and only Apple has this restriction".

No one is forcing developers to make apps for Apple. There are plenty of other platforms anyone can develop for without paying a fee or buying a Mac. Developing for Apple products is a business decision, just like choosing to work on import cars vs domestic cars. Plenty of repair shops only work on domestic cars because they're easier to repair and cost less. That's a business decision. Are you losing out on a particular market? Sure. But that's a business decision. If developing for iPhone will get you more than $XXX, then it's worth it to buy a cheap Mac and pay the developer fee because it will increase your profits more than you will spend. If that's not the case, then just develop for Android which only costs $25.

I don't like paying the $99 fee or having to develop on a Mac just to make iPhone apps, but if it bothered me _that much_ I would just stop making iPhone apps. Tim Cook did not come to my house and force me to make an app for him, I made the decision by myself knowing that the platform had restrictions and everyone on the platform had to abide by them.

As long as everyone is subject to the same rules, everyone has the same decision to make. No one is forcing anyone to make that decision.

<comment><USER14> This "No one is forcing someone to do X" is not how monopoly rules work. By that logic, no company would ever be a monopoly. You dont like X? Have you consider _not_ doing it?

Microsoft wasnt forcing anyone to buy PCs. It is for people who choose to do that ("the market") that the company is unfairly wielding the power.

<comment><USER16> Is Apple preventing anyone from buying a competing smartphone? Microsoft paid companies to only sell PCs with Microsoft operating systems, is Apple pushing Samsung to drop Android and use iOS? Microsoft undercut competitors and used their marketshare in the OS space to make their products (Internet Explorer) the dominant product in the space. Is Apple drastically undercutting Android phones on pricing?

Microsoft forced Windows into being basically the only OS on the market in the 90s, and dropped their prices to 'free' in order to destroy competition. They didn't force you to buy a PC, but if you wanted a computer, because of Microsoft's practices, Windows was basically your only option. Conversely, if you don't like Apple products, you're in luck because smartphones are an incredibly competitive market and Apple only reaches the very highest end of that market.

In what way is Apple pushing the market into buying more iPhones and locking out Android from the market? It doesn't matter how monopoly rules work unless the company actually has a monopoly.

<comment><USER17> > Is Apple preventing anyone from buying a competing smartphone?

Apple prevents everyone from using a competing app store. No, the Play Store does not compete with Apple's store. You cannot substitute either for the other so they're in different markets.

<comment><USER16> Xbox prevents everyone from using a competing game store. No the Playstation does not compete with Xbox's game store.

Walmart prevents everyone from buying products from competing stores. No, Target does not compete with Walmart, you can't buy Great Value products at Target so they're in different markets.

Hacker News prevents everyone from using a competing site. No, reddit does not compete with Hacker News. If I click the "reply" button it only posts to Hacker News and not reddit so they're in different markets.

I guess by that definition everything is a monopoly. I'm going to sue to get my Coca Cola bottles filled with Pepsi under federal anti-trust laws.

<comment><USER17> > Xbox prevents everyone from using a competing game store. No the Playstation > does not compete with Xbox's game store.

Indeed. You cannot substitute an Xbox game for a Playstation game or vice versa. Xbox games and Playstation games are different markets.

> I'm going to sue to get my Coca Cola bottles filled with Pepsi under federal > anti-trust laws.

Having a trademark _technically_ constitutes a monopoly. But there are good reasons to have trademark law anyway.

> Walmart prevents everyone from buying products from competing stores. No, > Target does not compete with Walmart, you can't buy Great Value products at > Target so they're in different markets.

> Hacker News prevents everyone from using a competing site. No, reddit does > not compete with Hacker News. If I click the "reply" button it only posts to > Hacker News and not reddit so they're in different markets.

I'll pretend you kept these ridiculous strawmen to yourself. If you have any actual arguments, I'd love to read them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Mark Gurman just released a podcast [0] with Phillip Shoemaker, former Apple head of App Store Review. Here is an article [1] summarizing their conversation. Some interesting takeaways:

\- Most automation has been removed from the process, since Phil Schiller took over. Each approval goes through a human (rejections can be automated)

\- Google Voice rejection fiasco [2] probably originated from internal politicking and fear of competition.

[0] - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2019-05-28/wwdc- preview...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2019-05-28/wwdc-preview-with- apple-s-former-app-approval-chief-podcast)

[1] - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-28/why- did-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-28/why-did-apple- reject-my-app-ex-head-of-app-store-review-explains)

[2] - [https://www.pcworld.com/article/169179/Apple_Rejects_Google_...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/169179/Apple_Rejects_Google_Voice_iPhone_App.html)

<comment><USER19> >\- Most automation has been removed from the process, since Phil Schiller took over. Each approval goes through a human (rejections can be automated)

Which is the major difference between Apple and Google. Google always tries to engineer ways to automate things, from Datacenter Energy usage to App Store Submission. The less person on the Job, including services and customer support the better. That is why you very rarely see any personal email response from Google.

Apple on the other hand is always about the human touch and to the point there is very little automation in the tool chain. Apple Map? We will hire tens of thousands of people to manually shape those data into 3D Model. App Store, we will manually approve every single one. Apple News? Human Curation, Apple Music and Beats 1, we have people doing those as well. But it is also expensive, and not very scalable.

The two company have the complete opposite mentality to how to solve problems.

<comment><USER20> > Google always tries to engineer ways to automate things

Even their customer support...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "A store that welcomes competition."

I thought they wouldn't dare listing web browsers in that competition... well they did.

It's cool after all, average users have no idea about the difference between a browser and the engine...

<comment><USER22> And average users don't care an iota about the differences in render engines. They see the UI, features like syncing bookmarks and such and think that's the browser. It's a different perspective.

<comment><USER23> Average users do care that they can't install addons. Adblock for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Its disingenuous they list other browsers, but those browsers are only skins for Safari.

After years of Android, I genuinely gave Iphone a shot for a few months. But not having native Firefox + ublock origin was a deal breaker.

<comment><USER9> I'm curious why you care about "native Firefox": does the engine really make that much of a difference in usability?

<comment><USER25> It makes a huge difference in support for web standards. There are many nice things that Firefox supports which Webkit does not. It also means that we have to lobby Apple to support standards, since we're not allowed to compete on merit (at least for engine-dependant features).

<comment><USER26> What's an example of a standard Firefox supports that Safari/webkit doesn't?

I work with cross-platform client-side JS libraries, though admittedly sticking to pretty vanilla/backwards compatible functionality, and the main thing I've seen that's wonky with Safari is the postMessage API. A few years ago, Firefox finally added the innerText API that many others had already adopted.

What other examples are there (this isn't a challenge, I am sure there are issues, just curious for my own knowledge!)

<comment><USER25> I should really write a script to generate this from MDN's browser compatibility data ([https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat- data](https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data)), but many APIs aimed at making browsers more competitive with native apps tend to lag behind or not get implemented at all in Webkit.

We only got working IndexedDB as of Safari 10 and Service Workers in Safari 11, both multiple years after support landed in stable Firefox. There's no support for WebXR, Web Push, or WebAuthn. Safari still can't display WebP images, show WebM (VP8/9) movies, or play Opus-formatted sound. Safari doesn't understand the current version of referrer-policy headers. Safari doesn't implement the String.prototype.matchAll() method. There's no support for getDisplayMedia(). Depending on how you count, we've been waiting seven years for getUserMedia() in Safari, and it's still not fully functional. Safari can't animate changes to CSS grid template rows/columns, or use overflow- inline / overflow-block media queries.

...it's a big weird grab bag of features, but a broad surface area nevertheless. And you have to wonder if some fringe APIs wouldn't be more popular if we could actually compete on bringing the _full_ Web platform to iOS devices in a timely manner.

<comment><USER26> Epic. Thanks so much for sharing. I immediately wondered if I could do some caniuse.com magic to answer my own question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> OK, clearly these claims of benefits are overstated.

Both the iOS and Mac stores have _obvious_ scam apps, that are ironically easy to find with Apple's own search when other things are much harder to find. And since their search lacks even simple filters, I can't start building a list of "never show me This Developer's Trash again" like I can on Steam for instance.

Recently when Apple sent out a developer survey, I told them to get rid of App Review. Completely. As a process, it fails. It _clearly_ has shoveled a disgusting amount of money over to thieves and scam artists. Meanwhile, I've been rejected multiple times for ridiculous reasons that took days to resolve. Even in 2019, I am utterly shocked if Apple manages to process an update in under a DAY.

They can pat themselves on the back if they wish but I think they've reinvested none of their 30% back in their stores in years. Their one "investment" was to make the Mac App Store objectively worse.

</comment><comment><USER28> "84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple."

Did I miss them making the Developer Program free? Because last time I checked, that was $99/year and serves no purpose but enabling public distribution of apps (Xcode itself is free and so is short-term developer sideloading).

<comment><USER29> I wouldn't be as bothered by this if they didn't gloat about the _awesome_ developer tools and documentation they _so generously_ provide.

Aren't those resources _exactly_ what we developers are paying for (at least partially) with our $99?

I've never publicly released anything in their ecosystem but I participate in the program for hobby/personal development reasons. What am I paying for if not the docs and tools?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think the comparisons between the native apps and app store apps are disingenuous. Native apps are:

1) Preinstalled 2) More deeply integrated with the OS. For example, you _still_ can't control Spotify with Siri.

You make all the slick websites in the world saying otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact that you've made the environment for 3rd party apps worse than your own.

<comment><USER9> > you _still_ can't control Spotify with Siri

You can, it's just that the API is somewhat limited and Spotify refuses to use it.

<comment><USER31> You can't get the same level of integration Apple Music can despite there being an internal API that Apple Music is using.

That's the problem.

It doesn't matter that there's an inferior integration available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I can't help but read most of this as corporate double-speak. In my mind there is no principle (other than greed) that justifies grabbing 30% of all sales on a digital store. Its especially greedy to grab money from future sales via subscriptions for apps like Spotify. And they also ban Spotify from telling their users to go to Spotify.com and pay there. I'm hoping Epic succeeds in pushing Apple and Steam to a less exploitative revenue split.

They advertise the App Store as a feature of the phone they're selling, and get paid for the feature by customers who buy the phone for the advertised features. But then they also grab 30% of sales from the developers who ship on their platform. Feels like double-dipping.

A reasonable option would be to charge fixed fee that allows them to pay for their review team and other overhead. They can tier this so that complex apps have to pay more for the effort involved in reviewing their app. And then charge a fixed cost per download that covers the payment processing, hosting and delivery costs - which would be a tiny percentage.

<comment><USER33> They can charge anything they want as long as third party appstores are allowed.

<comment><USER32> Fair point, competition can sometimes provide pushback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why are they listing Instagram and Snapchat as competitors to their native camera app? Neither of those are camera apps. Also listing competing apps is kind of pointless when iOS doesn't offer any way to change the default apps for any of these features? For example, I would like my own 3rd party Gmail app to open any taps on any links which are emails. But it doesn't and there is no way to change the default. Same for maps. I want google maps app to be the default but there is no obvious way to do that.

It's almost as if apple is either skipping over the argument we are making on purpose or they just don't understand the argument for allowing alternative app stores and changing defaults.

<comment><USER9> I would say that a significant number of pictures taken on iOS are taken with those two apps.

</comment></comment><comment> drew-y > A store that welcomes competition.

If this were an honest statement they'd allow competing app stores.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting: 100k submissions reviewed per week, most within 24h, 40% get rejected

<comment><USER35> I'd love to know how many of those 40k rejections revise and get approved.

Even if we say, 80% of those are scammy ad/malware crap, that leaves 16k. (I'm using totally guessed numbers, so I'll say that while Sturgeon's law says 90% will be crap I'm deliberately including the crap that isn't scammy)

If most of those get revised and improved, cool. If not...that's a lot of frustrated potential developers.

<comment><USER36> I have an app that's been sitting in review for 9days now... no feedback, nothing. It's been in the Mac App Store since it opened, but lately Apple has taken a dislike to my app, and likes to drag its feet with looooong review times. this has occurred with the last few updates. In the meantime, I have also released a completely different app, and updated that a couple times.

<comment><USER9> > Mac App Store

I don't have any apps there, but from what I hear the Mac App Store is almost entirely a different ballgame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Not mentioned: nonsensical restrictions. For example, apps are not allowed to use the phone's ambient light sensor. No explanation has been offered.

<comment><USER9> Here's one: it's a niche sensor that can easily be abused for tracking.

<comment><USER29> How so? I'm genuinely curious.

<comment><USER37> I've actually seen a demo of that, where a web page (or malicious script) transmits data in the form of flashes of light by making a large area of the screen white or dark, then another app reads it using the light sensor.

This only works under _very_ specific environmental conditions and allows the app to read data from another app or website that's cooperating with it. It's not an easy attack to pull off for any practical purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I find it funny that Apple themselves mentions that for "Reader" apps users can make purchases outside of the iOS environment, but developers are expressly forbidden from even mentioning this in their app.

</comment><comment><USER39> Some of this reads like a "the App Store is not a monopoly" explainer.

<comment><USER40> Why would it not be that? It's clearly been written in response to claims made by people like Spotify.

<comment><USER39> Who is the intended audience, politicians?

<comment><USER40> I'm guessing the intended audience includes politicians, journalists, and users, and anyone else who is exposed otherwise only to narratives from people who are suing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> In the 'Reader' Apps section, Apple says

> Apple receives no commission from supporting, hosting, and distributing > these apps.

Whats the yearly fees you pay to publish to App Store for?

<comment><USER42> They said commission. As in, they receive no commission from those apps from Apple offering support, hosting, and distribution. Which makes absolute sense because they are Reader apps and have no way to generate money inside the app to Apple (hence, no commission).

It's $99.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think it's fine to assume they may be acting genuinely. The alternative would be to see this as propaganda, and dismiss Apple as nothing more than a bunch of suits making decisions based on short term gains over long term health and stability. Because why would any corporation, especially Apple, attempt to act rationally, right?

I have no horse in this race, but running a company, I know it's possible to also have our truth and want to communicate it in a way that's easy to understand. I don't know if Apple is, but not every company has to be this demonic incarnation-of-evil we want to make them out to be.

<comment><USER9> > The alternative would be to see this as propaganda

This is absolutely a response to the anti-competitive claims that they've been hearing.

<comment><USER43> Right, conversations are usually triggered by back and forth reactions. Is the act of speaking propaganda? It could be, but usually it's to convey a thought you already hold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> How much is the push against Apple's App Store policies is the result of Apple's platform having the most lucrative users by a significant margin?

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store- revenue-n...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue- nearly-double-that-of-google-play-in-first-half-of-2018/)

Google has been slowly tightening down its platform too. Not mention, Google's bread and butter makes them money both directly and indirectly, so the incentives beyond security to tighten their platform weren't there from day one. Apple has always made its money based on direct relationships with its consumers (more or less, I'm simplifying a bit).

Now that both stores have been around for a long enough time, I think its starting to become clear that Apple has the more _lucrative_ users to sell to, and I'm sure this plays no small part in the increasing fervor around all this.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is so freakin' fascinating. The only reason Apple can get away with this is because they are making devices that large numbers of people actually want to own. The software has gotten quite stable over the years and I am happy to use and develop on the platform.

Should developers stop writing software for it, or should the public stop buying the phones, Apple will relent and open the store and devices up. You can see a similar thing happening with Microsoft. They've been in the room screaming, look at me, and people just walked by. So now they're opening everything up and loosening their grip.

Apple did the same in the late 90s and early 2000s when they were about to lose their biggest developer, Adobe. Suddenly they got Open Source and created an open platform much to the surprise of everyone. Originally the BSD/Unix layer was an optional add on to OS X, and then they hired the creator of FreeBSD and just started including it by default.

</comment><comment><USER34> Another problem I have with Apple's stance on what's allowed when it comes to adult content. For example, I am working on a Reddit content and I am not even allowed to have a setting in app to switch on NSFW content which is ludicrous imo. Same with pornographic and adult content, neither of which are allowed. This puts a pretty major block in the way for certain legal companies from using their platform. I think Apple should allow adult content apps and simply filter it out based on the iCloud account which is using the App Store based on their age. Apple plays the parent but it's pretty useless considering kids can simply use a browser to access it. To access Reddit's adult content, you just need to hit the "I am over 18" button. So Apple playing the parent is useless.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm puzzled that many "Apple monopoly" advocates don't apply the same reasoning to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, who tightly control licensing for software on the PS4, Switch, and Xbox and also compete vigorously against their own developers. (Not to mention other walled-garden platforms like Xfinity.)

"Oh but you can buy physical media so it's totally different" \- who do you think licenses those Nintendo Switch cartridges? And what about the Xbox One S All-Digital edition, which is download only?

If we generally permit platform licensors to construct and control their own walled gardens, on what basis should we forbid Apple from doing exactly that? Is it because of their size or income?

</comment><comment><USER47> > 84% of apps are free, and developers pay nothing to Apple.

Wait, what? I thought you had to pay 100$ a year for the privilege to publish anything on the app store, even if it's free.

</comment><comment><USER48> Instead of arguing about access to Apple's walled garden, maybe spotify et al should develop their ecosystems around the proven, open web , and then sue apple if they 're refusing to support technologies they need. This would be a bigger win for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER49> Interesting to see that Apple considers Slack as more of a competition to Messages app than WhatsApp ?

<comment><USER9> I think they just picked four apps in the same category, not necessarily they ones they thought were the strongest competition.

<comment><USER49> I don't think Apple 'puts out things just coz.' They are very deliberate and thoughtful behind anything they say and release in public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Seriously Apple, you are still charging 99$ a year each developer that wants to publish on your store.

Is this how you support developers? Is this how you favorite competition? Is this what you call a developer experience at no additional cost?

<comment><USER20> Charging a $99 fee is something I think is ok. It keeps a lot of bad actors out of the store. Yes yes, there are bad apps that still end up on app store. But that fee does help to keep some out because it's not economical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The Apple doth protest too much, methinks

</comment><comment><USER12> Reading Apple teaches me a lot about copywriting.

If something is ambiguous, you are allowed to say whatever you want.

That article was beautiful like a Donald Trump speech. Propaganda, but it was fun and exciting.

<comment><USER52> I completely agree, and listen to Trump speeches for the same reason. Let's dissect their headline a bit.

> Dedicated to the best store experience for everyone.

What a fun happy sentence. What does it mean?

"Dedicated" \- By who, to who? The assumption is Apple is dedicated to the user, but likely the inverse is the truth, and the goal. Dependence might be a better word.

"Best" \- By what metric? The reader assumption is 'most user friendly'. The truth is closer to "spend the most money".

"Experience" \- Perhaps most overused word in millennial marketing. It makes you think of a travel adventure, something noble. The truth of this word is connected to "best". The experience is one of consumption.

"Everyone" \- Who is "everyone"? The reader assumption is one of inclusion. The reality, of course, is "those who have a compatible Apple device".

So, a little truth reframe:

Driving our users to spend more money.

<comment><USER9> > a little truth reframe

That is, throwing out the headline and replacing it with your perception of what Apple is.

<comment><USER52> Funny thing is I'm a huge Apple fan. I'm interested in modern propaganda and how it works. Few are as good as Apple.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple in talks to acquire Australian startup Sonder (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/13/apple-in-talks-to-acquire-australian-startup-quest-magic-keyboard-reports-tim-cook-sonder <comment><AUTHOR> _" The Reddit user said the chief differences between the Apple prototype and that shown in the Sonder clip was all the keys had a screen and lighting panel, and the display updated instantly with no slow transition from black to white. As a design-for-testing model not due to be released before 2018, the design was far from confirmed but the Reddit user seemed optimistic about the early unit. "It's really a solid indication of the future of input technology,""_

Hadn't seen this, though it was submitted five months ago. Makes the rMBP menu-bar look like a joke.</comment>