Talking About Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/05/01/talking-about-money/ <comment><USER3> >> Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a discount, which is a brutal mistake

I had a phone screen with an HR drone once (Cerner Inc. to be exact \waves) part way thru she asked me my current salary. I declined to provide that information. She replied "we can't continue without that information". I replied, I'm sorry, but I won't discuss salary at this point. She said, "good bye" and that was all. I had a job so was not desperate at the time. I was still shocked at how abrupt it was.

<comment><USER4> Crazy. I'd definitely send a quick note to someone higher up if you can get a hold of him/her. I know, not worth the time, a hassle etc. But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire.

I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test where declining to share private information completely 100% immediately disqualifies you, that's insane.

Anyway, never experienced it. Question for you all, are there any negatives to bluffing?

i.e. say you said your previous salary was $110k while it was really $90k, will HR say 'you're overqualified' or something to that extent if they were hoping to pay you say $90k and had a max of $100k in mind?

As in, can you recover from that and say 'oh but $100k is fine, too', or would that also send a signal of weakness where they won't hire you because you seem desperate (taking a $10k cut from their perspective, when you actually get a $10k raise)? Ugh the mindgames! haha. Would love to hear your experiences on this issue.

<comment><USER3> Yes, one might think so, but this was the CEO in question[1]. Edit, and so far as bluffing, could an employer legally ask for W2's to verify?

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging- office-m...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-office-memo- boomerangs-chief-executive-criticized-after-upbraiding.html)

<comment><USER5> They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away! (I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.)

I did a small bluff to try it out, just 5k above what I was making. The recruiter was surprisingly skeptical! I know I've done an good job of bumping up my salary in a short amount of time, but it was kind of off-putting to have him question it.

<comment><USER6> I'm a bootstrapped entrepreneur CEO with ~30 employees in my company now, growing quickly, expect to have ~60 in next 12 months.

I am not so interested in previous salary. Rather, I always directly ask "what is your salary requirement". I think it is good business sense to not underpay what people think they require, though sometimes this means we must pass on what could otherwise be good employees, so requesting moonshot salaries is definitely a filter for us.

Furthermore, when I ask applicants their requirement, if they just deliver a number to me using logic that does not include salary levels at previous jobs to justify, then I evaluate how close it is to my budget target for the position, and if feasible, I make an offer at that requested level.

However, if the applicant uses a previous salary to justify their current salary requirement, and it's a lot higher than I expected or had targeted for the position, I have on a few occasions offered jobs with compensation to match previous salaries, so long as applicant proves to my HR they are not lying about the salary.

So far, all offers I've made predicated on proving their salary claims, my HR has proven the applicants were lying to significant degree, except for one person. Those that were caught lying had job offers rescinded. The one person that wasn't lying only lasted 90 days because he clearly couldn't add value to justify.

From my point of view, the best strategy for negotiating a higher salary is to get in front of a person that cares if you can help them make them more money than it costs to pay you, regardless of your previous salary (an HR manager is usually not the person that cares about this). Then present a clear vision to them for how you will deliver that added value.

<comment><USER7> Why ask for a salary requirement? Why can't an employer just say "We're paying $X for this position, does that work for you?"

Just pay what the position is worth to you. The only reason to negotiate is to pay less than the position is worth if possible.

<comment><USER8> Above a certain point, and most programming jobs are above that point, there is no fixed position with a fixed value. The right person in the right place can easily be worth 2x or more than originally anticipated for an opening. There's no way to predict that in advance, so at best the employer could give an ideal range and let candidates demonstrate their value if they want to exceed the range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wrote a small application a while back to allow a team to figure out what their average salary was without exposing individual salaries. Seems relevant.

[https://are-we-being-underpaid.herokuapp.com/](https://are-we-being- underpaid.herokuapp.com/)

It generates unique URLS for each participant and stores almost nothing on the server. Only a party that was actively monitoring web traffic has enough information to divine someone's salary. No tracking of emails, salaries, etc.

Source code here [https://github.com/pipermerriam/am-i- underpaid](https://github.com/pipermerriam/am-i-underpaid)

<comment><USER10> Very cool. This looks like a solid answer to a simple question that many people would like answered. Now if only I could think up good side projects like this to do. : )

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I always appreciate your transparency and believe that you're helping drive our industry forward. I often search for ideas on how to help within my area of influence. The closest I've found is Stack Exchange's salary matrix, and the related approach at Fog Creek.

I think publishing salaries has several benefits. For one thing, it removes the used car salesman approach to hiring. One result, which is more important, is that it can help eliminate wage disparity due to differences of gender or level of negotiating skills. It can also help prevent the corrosive effects that can occur if people do find out actual numbers (the morale-sapping that you discuss).

The problem with this approach, and one I'm trying to figure out is, what about the non-developer jobs? Assumedly, each group gets their own matrix. But if the admins can browse the matrices of the other groups, like the development team's, then there can be a similar corrosive effect. One option is to only discuss the salary matrix within your group and with HR. But then we're back to a different version of the tired old story. (Don't discuss the matrix outside of your group!) This leads me to believe that it's best to be completely open. It might also serve as an incentive for people to make an effort to grow into different areas. Any ideas appreciated.

<comment><USER12> At the firm that I work at everything is in the open, even between groups, and it works very well. It is a formula-based compensation given your department (basically consultants and back-office) and stated level. With that, I know or can calculate exactly how much my manager makes, how much an entry level HR employee makes, and how much the CEO makes.

I love it because it removes any problem with politics or shadowy discussions, and I know what I can expect when a promotion comes. The only downside is that it leaves the firm with little leverage when it comes to compensation: I can't simply get a bump without a promotion, nor are there extra bonuses that can be given out either for hiring or retaining. (This has its benefits as well however.)

<comment><USER11> That's enlightening and encouraging. A formula-based/matrix approach might make it more acceptable because it isn't personal. One thing I haven't seen is how to handle COLA. I'm sure that can also be added as an additional factor, though.

<comment><USER12> (Late to the reply, sorry.) COLA is addressed on a per office basis. Our headquarters is in a relatively inexpensive large city, and so other offices in pricier places like SF or DC get a blanket COLA adjustment, with the percentage bump based on some particular survey's index or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a recent graduate about to go into his first ever salary negotiation, I'm really grateful for the perspective this provides. My dad was a taxi driver (now drives for Uber) and my mother a stay-at-home mom. I was raised with the notion of earning enough to support myself. Anything beyond that is something I'm expected to figure out myself. Posts such as these are very helpful.

A question though:

1\. If I've had conversations in quarterly reviews that involved numbers but nothing was ever formalized, are those numbers open to renegotiation in a formal conversation?

2\. How do I ask for equity and how much should I ask for as the first hire (technical employee of a non-technical founder)?

Edit: I'm aware the user who posted this is not the author, but I'm hoping patio11 or someone else comfortable offering negotiation advice will stop by the comments section.

<comment><USER14> Re 2), you should make sure your salary is at market-level and more or less ignore equity. Chances are you'll be let go or the company will collapse before it's worth anything.

If you have a reasonable salary, equity is just a cherry on top, but if an employer tries to get you to trade cash today for a startup lottery ticket, say no.

This is especially important early in your career given the time value of money. An extra $10k/year in the first five years of your career, properly saved, could add north of $600k to your retirement when you get to that stage in life. That's an almost-certain payoff against a roll of the dice on a sliver of ever-diluted equity.

<comment><USER15> Since L_Rahman didn't mention "startup" per se....

The Equity / RSU package from many big (publicly-traded) tech firms can be as much as 30% of total compensation. I generally account for this portion the same as "cash with a discount" \-- when negotiating for my current role, I used a 30% discount on the present share price.

For startups... it's a mixed bag (as saryant mentions).

<comment><USER14> L_Rahman may not have used the word "startup,", but he did say "first hire" so it's reasonable to assume we're discussing a startup.

Obviously the negotiation will go differently if we're talking about, say, RSUs at ExxonMobil which are as good as cash once they vest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Posting your company salaries does a few things:

1) It promotes mediocrity. 2) Creates a political cesspool. 3) Ties the hands of hiring team.

1 - Excellent people want to go places where they can make more. When excellent people learn about public salary postings the first thing they will worry about is the perception of other employees. I suspect they will just avoid conflict and work somewhere else. Really think about the current open salary systems: state governments, federal systems (cia, fbi..), school teachers, college systems, military..

2 - Will you help the "next" person above your salary grade? Why? Your goal is to be higher than he/she - so this promotes extremely bad behavior. This is how yahoo is setup. People will be trained to create little moats to protect power, inflate budgets, hide data, hurt other employees.

3 - Really want that new hire? Well, now you have no negotiation power. If you pay this employee salary X. Anyone who gets less than X (Call this Y) will be pushed down in the employee chain. So now, instead you want to minimize Y. Sublimity, you will hire less and less capable people to avoid conflict with the current team.

<comment><USER17> > Excellent people want to go places where they can make more

The issue with engineers is that we don't do that and are bad at negotiations. Once at job people rarely look out unless they realise that they are grossly underpaid. This may be true for other job profiles like sale/biz-dev etc where the day to day jobs hone their skills for best deal extraction.

<comment><USER16> You are totally correct. They avoid conflict. If engineers are told at the interview - "Your salary will be this, it will be posted online for all the other employees to see"

I suspect the engineer to not be there Monday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem I have with this #talkpay thing is that it assumes everyone I connect with is in our lucrative echo chamber. I'd feel like a asshole talking about my income as a contract developer knowing I have followers who are really struggling to find work / decent pay outside of technology.

Conferences, tech meetups etc I'm usually the first to be championing developer solidarity and pushing the message that we can and should all be demanding more money, everywhere else I try and keep it low profile to not rub peoples noses in it.

<comment><USER19> I fully agree with that sentiment.

I have a lot of non-tech folks ask me about money (when they ask me what I do and if it pays well) and I always try to avoid giving numbers and go with a more generic 'I can't complain, things are ok/good'. I earn a lot (and I mean a lot) compared to non-tech folks where I live: 20x difference in some cases. I had a friend recently in a conversation mentioning that buying X (one of those cheap android tablets for kids) as a birthday present was 3 days worth of her work. In my case, it is less than 1.5 hours of my work.

I'm very happy for earning these values, and I try to give back when I can, pick up the bill here and there (enough to help, but not enough for people to resent it) but I know we developers are quite lucky with the luck of the draw we got in this little slice of time and IMO, we should be more considerate of others in these cases.

<comment><USER14> I feel the same way as a 2012 college graduate. Most of my college friends are still unemployed or working in marginal work (temps, office admins, phone support). On top of that, most are buried in student loans (private college) whereas I had parents able to pick up the tab. More than one has turned to webcam porn to make money while I'm charging $$$ as a software contractor.

I post photos on Facebook from Tokyo or Berlin and sometimes wonder if I'm pissing off my friends.

<comment><USER19> Sorry for the late reply.

I don't think you should stop posting photos from your trips just because you are 'afraid' you will be pissing off your friends. They can always unfollow you (or whatever FB allows you to do, I'm not big on social networks) if they find it 'offensive'. I just think it is a balancing act between sharing parts of your life, and sharing absolute numbers or boasting.

Anyone that knows me for more than 5 minutes, knows I'm doing well (I live in a nice place, in a very expensive area for example and I don't hide this), but at the same time, I avoid letting (outside of very close friends) people know how well exactly. I never talk about money or salaries or what not. That doesn't mean I won't invite them over for dinner/a swim in the pool just in case I 'piss them off'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Something which I think is only hinted at here: negotiating pay requires a willingness to lose the job if the negotiation doesn't go well.

If hirer has an equally good candidate or consultant who quotes a lower rate: you're out of the running. Even if you're better, you have to be better value according to the employer's own assessment.

There are few employers who are price insensitive and you have to be in an overwhelmingly lucky or privileged position to find them.

<comment><USER21> > _negotiating pay requires a willingness to lose the job if the negotiation > doesn 't go well._

That's why, if possible, you negotiate when you already have another offer. I negotiated a +50% annual pay raise at my last job because I was completely willing to walk away for another job.

I also got the raise because I was playing an important part in a high value project at that time. I felt a bit guilty about the possibility of leaving the project in the lurch, or negotiating when my value was at its highest. I thought it would lead to resentment from my managers if they thought I was strong-arming them.

But they agreed to the rate, and never showed resentment. Every successful business person or trader knows to sell high, but sometimes the rest of us forget.

> _If hirer has an equally good candidate or consultant who quotes a lower > rate: you 're out of the running._

If you can easily be replaced by a new hire or a consultant, you don't deserve the higher salary.

<comment><USER22> Negotiating without a BATNA is like jumping out of a perfectly good plane without a parachute.

<comment><USER23> What is a BATNA?

<comment><USER24> [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotia...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Salaries are not just internally transparent at Japanese megacorps but so predictable that any middle-class adult in central Japan can accurately predict my salary history. I mention this partly to say that salary transparency by itself does not guarantee happy outcomes for employees."

Yes. Salaries at Buffer might be transparent but also quite low.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, I actually prefer a lack of transparency. I fully recognize the right of others to discuss salaries openly and support their ability to do so. However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating.

If for example, you know company X's highest paid software developer makes $110k, and the lowest makes $90k, (and such a narrow banded salary range is probably likely if everyone knows exactly what everyone else earns), you probably aren't going to get them to pay you far north of $110k simply because that would carry the likely result of increasing everyone else's salary since they now know you are making more than they are and they want a salary increase too.

But the lack of transparency should really go both ways, ideally if you want to get the best terms. That is, if you can inflate your previous salary or not disclose it at all while asking for a number significantly above it you are in a much better position than laying bare your entire earnings history.

<comment><USER27> Correct.

Transparency benefits the company for this exact reason.

There is a non-zero cost (headache, dollars, what have you) in leaving an organization. This means that salaries can be at market rate, drift below, and people still may not see enough value to leave.

Good negotiating means you will always see market rate or above. Transparency means salaries will drift below market rate until someone deems you worthy of a bump.

Buffer salaries are outrageously low: for that reason alone, I would never advise anyone to work there.

<comment><USER28> Salary is only one part of a company's compensation. For instance, in the Buffer case, they do remote working, so some people could find that to be worth quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If consulting is making $30k/week/job then why keep running the personal businesses? Why not take the consulting and branch it out, and drop everything else as a distraction?

<comment><USER30> Because I enjoyed running the software business more than I enjoyed running the consultancy. Partly that is for difficult-to-explain personal reasons (I feel the sense of satisfaction with operating a software company that some people feel when painting things). Partly it is because of reasons which are endemic to consultancies, even successful consultancies. Feel free to ask if you're curious.

I also have a quirky relationship to money as a goal. Rather little would change about my life if my salary increased by $800k. My hobbies would remain books, video games, taking my wife and daughter on walks, and posting too much on HN.

<comment><USER31> Not snark... serious question... its not clear to me what sort of services anyone could offer for 30k per week... what sort of thing commands that kind of price tag?

<comment><USER30> Making $20 million a year SaaS companies into $22 million a year SaaS companies. If you have reasonable expectation that I can actually deliver on that, then you're pretty much willing to say yes to any rate I quote.

If you're curious "How does one turn a $20 million a year SaaS company into a $22 million a year SaaS company?", there exist many options depending on the specifics of the company and virtually all of them are doable. For example, if you increase the rate at which the SaaS company closes deals by a modest amount, that could reasonably hit that by itself. You could do that by some combination of A/B testing, better email marketing, tweaking sales processes, etc, alone or in combination. I've blogged pretty extensively on all those topics if you're curious.

These are not necessarily all that technically complicated. If you can figure out ActionMailer, an if statement, and a for loop, you have every technical capability you need to be an engineer in charge of email marketing. The interesting bits are "What emails do I decide to send?", "What words go in those emails?", and "What goes in the if statement?"

The actual work is _exactly_ as dominated by meat-and-potatoes execution ability as you think it is.

<comment><USER32> What books can I read to, at the very least, attempt address the questions in your 3rd paragraph, given how unique every business is? Isn't anything you find a book on sales or marketing so abstract that it's 2 or 3 layers of assumptions before you can talk about projections? How does one begin a career in SaaS sales / marketing? What makes for a good "portfolio piece" in that domain?

<comment><USER33> One of the things that has made Patrick a "tech. celebrity" is that he has written extensively and openly about this very topic. In particular his brand of uniqueness was to take a lot of things that engineers don't like and then turn it into an engineering problem. He didn't guess, he tested.

Here is the amazing thing, he also did all of us a huge service and wrote it up and put it on the internet for everyone to find!

If you haven't yet, spend as much time as you can diving in his blog. Every post he's written is worth the price of admission, but you could definitely limit your search to the ones that focus on the SaaS sales and marketing aspects.

<comment><USER34> I wouldn't call Patrick a 'tech celebrity', I would call him a 'marketing celebrity' in tech. His writings on how to market yourself are without doubt the best essays I've ever read on the subject.

<comment><USER35> See you guys only put it like this because you haven't heard him sing along to TLC. He's really just a straight-up celebrity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a discount, which is a brutal mistake_

Completely agree with this, though I made a mistake that was even worse than this. A friend hired me a couple of years ago to join his small company as the first developer, during which I disclosed my salary and also mentioned that I was willing to take a pay cut (as I wasn't happy where I was, and he was a tiny company still finding his footing). Fortunately, he matched my salary, so I didn't end up making less money as such, though it also didn't take into account of the value that I brought to the business, being the only developer on the team.

As a result, it certainly feels like I've sabotaged myself, where I should be making more than I am, with the only solution being to find better compensated employment elsewhere despite being reasonably with my current role.

</comment><comment><USER26> _Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a discount, which is a brutal mistake_

I used to believe in this adamantly, however recently I think it requires a bit of refinement.

First, it depends on where you are presently. If you are in a job you really don't enjoy or are not performing well in, for whatever reason, your top priority is finding a job that better utilizes your talents. A lot of people believe that once you start a job at a certain rate of pay, you can't negotiate it up significantly because you will always be anchored to that initial amount. That isn't really true. Once you start if you perform well you become a valuable asset, and companies don't like to lose valuable assets. One option is to find another company that will offer you the amount you want to make and take it back to your company and ask them to match it. Very often they will and without much argument. However the important thing is to start.

Now if you are in a job you enjoy and have no real desire to leave except pay, then you definitely should not disclose your salary, as you have a powerful negotiating position as you really don't need to move. However if the company is really pressing you to give them a number and won't move you on unless you do, it's okay to tell them the number _if you are up-front and steadfast_ in that you are looking for amount $X which could be 1.5x, 2x, or any multiple of what you are presently earning. If they claim they can't match it then move on.

Finally, never negotiate salary with a recruiter before meeting with the hiring manager. Many times (certainly not always) recruiters do not know much about the job requirements besides what was written by the hiring team in a bulleted list. They don't have the authority to grant salary requests, but in many cases hiring managers do. I have had several job offers come in well above what the recruiter told me the job paid. No matter what you are told the salary range is, if a team really wants you, they will pay to get you.

</comment><comment><USER37> > (Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a > previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your > new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a > discount, which is a brutal mistake, particularly in the years of your > career where natural growth in capabilities/experience/the market/etc causes > you to bring vastly more to the table with each new job.)

This is terrible advice. If a prospective employer asks how much you are making, respond with your desired salary at minimum. If they are serious, the negotiation point will be that plus whatever raise you claim to be looking for. If they want paystubs, you seriously don't want to work for them, because no professional should suffer that indignity and they're probably turning away great people as it is. I've only had one company ever ask for paystubs in my career and I got a weird vibe from them early on anyway.

<comment><USER35> If you tell HR "I won't tell you what I made last job, but I'll tell you what I want to make", then you're basically following most of Patrick's advice.

If you can lie convincingly, lying might be an effective negotiating strategy. Lying convincingly here generally involves you knowing as much about the job market as employers do, though, and that tends not to be the case: employers talk to 10 people for every 1 hire they make, and so they get a pretty good snapshot not just of the field at large, but of what other people at your current firm make.

Lying _unconvincingly_ is a very poor strategy. It broadcasts both naivete and insecurity to your counterparty, both of which are exploitable characteristics.

<comment><USER38> In the current market you don't need to lie: just get multiple offers.

Also, you can use recruiters to your advantage. Give them much higher salary demands (i.e. 20-50% higher than your current wage). They'll come back to you if they find someone willing to pay. If they question you, then the reason you're expensive is your specialist skill-set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> There has been a recent trend in tech discussions to have greater transparency in compensation, and more importantly, removing negotiation from employment procedure (see recent changes at Reddit). I fear that this move would dramatically hurt startups, who need all the flexibility they can get. Moreover, this move could dramatically kill any form of cohesiveness in startups. Lastly, this move would de-emphasize the importance the skill of negotiation, which would be a detriment to the company.

To those who don't know, most large companies already have a structured pay table. Try working at AT&T or McDonalds, and you can probably predict where your salary will be in the next 5-10 years. Real negotiation for most people in most positions mainly happens in small firms and startups.

Lack of salary negotiation will only scare away well qualified candidates who don't fit some arbitrarily made rubric (which will almost always back out to years worked, which is a terrible standard). Imagine if by paying 20k extra, you can get one of those mythical "10x rockstar" engineers. Would you remove your ability to hire him?

By opening up everyone's salaries, it will only hurt the startup culture, as it will only make people dislike each other. I often found engineers and business development people devalue each others work, in large part because neither party can understand the work of the other. Imagine them knowing each others salaries! Each side can find a justification on why they are being under-compensated while the other over-compensated. Startups need cohesiveness to survive.

Lastly negotiation is a valuable skill in the workplace. Interviews reward people who can handle stress and negotiate. Imagine a shipping date is imposed upon you, and not all the features can be included. You're going to want a leader on the engineering team to negotiate with the strategy makers to find an equitable solution. De-emphasizing negotiation is de-emphasizing a critical human skill.

<comment><USER40> Publicizing salary just requires, as a prerequisite, publicizing the objective value each employee is adding to the company. Which requires everyone agreeing on an objective standard for _calculating_ that value. Once you have that, kbowing salary isn't nearly as scary.

On the other hand, once you have that, people will start actually thinking of their peers in terms of being high- or low-ROI...

<comment><USER41> Most will not see not see if as their coworkers objective value. You're dealing with people of emotion, not objectivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Objection 1: In most of the instances I'm aware of (please comment if you know of counterexamples), salary transparency only happens in places where compensation is based on a few obvious parameters like years of experience and job title, with little room for individual variation. In cases where there's a large variation in productivity between employees with the same role, it's not going to be possible to pay them commensurately in a system with fully transparent salaries. So this seems to only really make sense in roles where individual contributions are too tied up with group performance to disentangle, or where they're very hard to measure.

Objection 2: To the extent that perceived relative pay is the variable that actually matters for determining how happy someone is with their compensation (ask someone in NYC versus someone in Mumbai with the same cost-of-living- adjusted salary how rich they each feel), then releasing salary information can be welfare-reducing even if it does cause salaries to rise in general. This is one of the strongest arguments opposing income inequality: the existence of very rich people makes everyone worse off by making them _feel_ poorer.

Related hypothetical question: If every worker were paid exactly proportional to their actual productivity, how much would the standard deviation of labor earnings increase? ([http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/04/meritocracy_ble....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/04/meritocracy_ble.html))

<comment><USER43> Objection to objection 2 - are you seriously suggesting that basic market functions like price transparency will be a bad thing because it will make well paid people feel less well paid? They can cry all the way to the bank.

Paying people proportional to their productivity is one measure - <USER2> relative to marginal contribution is probably more accurate - so a CEO of 100,000 people who manages to get them all to work 1% harder has made quite a valuable contribution. Edit: this presupposes the PR / in house magazine publisher is not really Responsable ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Patrick's got a ton of great insight into salary negotiations, and this post is no exception. Everybody (especially engineers) - needs to get comfortable talking about compensation and wages in safe spaces. This shouldn't come from a sense of ego, but from a much more humble and sincere sense of information- sharing.

The people who are hurt the most by keeping compensation info secret are precisely the ones that need the information the most - folks from low income backgrounds, people worried about making more than their parents, etc.

As a practical tip, one thing I encourage _everybody_ who's a client to model their equity grant in a simple excel spreadsheet. You need to know

* your strike price * preferred share price * company valuation * total # shares outstanding

As a rule of thumb you can assume your shares are "diluted" (that is your total % ownership relative to valuation) will decrease anywhere on the order of 15%-40%) after each funding round depending on company's performance. Plotting this beforehand, along with where you believe the company will end up, will give you a great sense of what your equity is worth.

[Source: I founded [http://OfferLetter.io](http://OfferLetter.io) \- We help engineers and other tech workers get what they're worth. If you're interested in free data, you should join Offer Drive ([http://offerletter.io/drive.html](http://offerletter.io/drive.html) to learn if you're paid fairly]

</comment><comment><USER45> I've always found the taboo about discussing salaries weird. In my experience, it's almost nonexistant among Russian immigrants to the US—at least the ones my family knows—and yet hasn't caused any real problems.

Sure, there are issues of status and perceived worth around salary—but hiding the numbers doesn't help. People still know your job title, understand your company and see your lifestyle. That's more than enough! Numbers only matter if you want to talk about relatively small differences—ones that matter far more for salary negotiation and evaluating a position than they do for cocktail party

Now, perhaps I'm just being simplistic, but the way I see it is genuinely simple: markets are about transferring information. To do this well, participants have to know what the prices are elsewhere. An arbitrary cultural taboo around the prices does nothing but impede the flow of information. The fact that it's asymmetric just makes it doubly worse.

Transparent salaries are about as capitalistic and idea as can be.

Unfortunately, by character, I'm also unlikely to take my own advice: I fear awkwardness disproportionately. Just one more reason why I deeply dislike arbitrary social rules.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's like no one has every heard of a salary survey, and thinks the only way to get that information is for everyone to reveal their pay!

Just go buy a salary survey! The information will be far more detailed than just random salary tweets from people in different roles, with different capabilities and different experiences in different cities in different countries.

Hey, someone doing my job in San Fran gets $200k! I'm going to go and ask my employer for that! A quick check of a salary survey might sober me up.

Also a salary survey is far more potent data to present in a salary negotiation to convince people to pay you what you want, rather than "Someone on twitter said...".

</comment><comment><USER47> Meanwhile, in Finland, you could just tell the company that: "If you really want to know, then please visit the tax authorities' office and look up my previous year's taxable income from their public terminals."

</comment><comment><USER48> I found this spreadsheet[1] to be pretty interesting. Obviously it's anonymous so take the data with a grain of salt.

1- [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F9e8DrWv5_rx3il0r2Sg...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F9e8DrWv5_rx3il0r2SgE3TO0usN_uEWq46d0R3M73w/edit#gid=0)

</comment><comment><USER49> The part about 2X total lifetime of business earnings made me think of a good Serbian saying (could be Montenegrin, not sure): _when negotiating on price, a good deal is when you 're ashamed of your offer._

</comment><comment><USER50> Hmm. We just ask people how much they want to make and give them as much time as they need to respond.

If it's higher than we can pay, then we say sorry we can't pay that. If it's way lower than we would expect we usually tell them that we wouldn't expect to pay less than X for their skills and experience.

This has worked great so far because if someone came back with a really low number and we just took it, then a month later they will realize they undershot and then they feel awkward about bringing it up - so, best to avoid that.

My ethos is: Pay people enough for them to not think about money. If you are only working for me for the pay then it's probably not going to be a great working relationship. They are better off going to work at megacorp where they can sham.

<comment><USER51> On the other hand, when someone states much more than you can afford - don't you think to just pass on this candidate, because she might feel unhappy even if she accepts the offer?

Also, to follow Patrick's advice - if someone doesn't give the answer but instead asks the same question to you - "what's the budget/range for this role? ", do you answer honestly?

<comment><USER50> For the first question, no. That has happened twice and they both seemed upset but weren't going to budge.

As for the second question, yes I always say what our budget is if asked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Interesting use of the term Rack Rate in the article -- I had to google it: The published, full price for a room in a hotel that has not been pre-booked [1]

[1] [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rack_rate](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rack_rate)

<comment><USER53> "the official or advertised price of a hotel room, _on which a discount is usually negotiable_."

<comment><USER54> Look on the door in the room, and it'll show the rate, which is typically far greater than what you paid (typically 2-3x)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Posts like this, and the #talkpay on Twitter, is the kind of stuff I would've loved to have a couple years ago, starting in the industry. Here's hoping this sparks a conversation across the industry between employees and managers on salary over the next couple months.

</comment><comment><USER56> As a wise person once told me: people don't get paid what they are worth, they get paid what they can negotiate.

</comment><comment><USER57> If people knew everyone's salaries there would always be discontent. There will be people making less thinking that are better/more experience/worth more than person B making $X more than them.

<comment><USER58> I think it's reasonable to believe that the employer should have a good answer to the question "why is s/he making more than me, what does s/he do better?"

<comment><USER59> Yes, but let's not be naive enough to assume that people would be satisfied even with a good answer.

<comment><USER58> Well, a good answer would be "because s/he is familiar with codebases A, B and C and has skills X, Y, Z", and I would expect the employer to follow-up with a raise if the employee in question also learns all of the above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> As someone who works for the government and makes almost more than 50% less than those in the private sector doing the same thing (according to national studies for my profession at my level) this is depressing. I don't know, in the back of my mind I want to launch my own startup and get out of where I am now. My equal co-worker just left a month ago and is making 5x what she was making (in a senior capacity to myself) really makes me question myself. Although, I am getting by just fine and living 10 minutes from work is hard to let go.

<comment><USER61> Don't you get a very nice risk-free pension (defined-benefit)? Most of private industry has switched to 401K (defined-contribution).

<comment><USER60> Well in theory yes, but who knows. I still have a roth and 457 IRA just in case. My state has repeatedly declined cost of living increases for retired state workers for several years now. The gains in the pension system have steadily been above 10% but that has not stopped the state from putting its hands in its pension funds (I am in Louisiana).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm all for transparency, but it is easy to get weird results from the current range of "small startup bootstrapping" to "valley darling throwing money" to "high salary with no equity" to "<insert odd thing here>".

I'd love to have a notion of what the real work rates and long-term rewards our for our industry, but it's so hard.

Also, I note that nobody here is sticking their username next to their salary and equity stakes. :P

<comment><USER22> It's a function of company size. You can get North of $300K + options from the larger valley companies if you're good at what you're doing (though they will attempt to lowball you and they definitely discourage you from sharing that bit of info with your colleagues), somewhat less than that at smaller companies (but if there are options involved you'll get a larger chunk of a (much) smaller pie).

At even smaller companies you can be co-founder with substantial risk and associated rewards if it works out well. It's basically a risk management issue, if you don't want a lot of risk and a reasonably high pay with a potential upside you can't beat the giants, if your needs are small and you can deal with the occasional loss it may pay off to gamble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> It's a great article, but does anyone know where I can find similar information about pay in Europe? The Netherlands specifically, where I live.

</comment><comment><USER15> > I recently sold my first SaaS business, Bingo Card Creator.

Patrick, was that already well known? Do you have any plans to discuss that experience?

</comment><comment><USER64> When they ask me what my previous salary was, I tell them it doesn't matter because I won't accept an offer based on it.

</comment><comment><USER65> >>The business is modestly successful. I have a particular number in mind for it, which I'd be crazy to quote publicly prior to selling it, for the same reason that you'd be crazy to quote your desired salary in a salary negotiation. If a buyer pitches me on 2X my desired number I will, naturally, say "That's an interesting number. If you were offer insert 2.2X here I think we'd have a deal." No buyer will pitch 2X if they know what X is, though.

There is sufficient information there for a buyer to calibrate to some extent what X is from the author's response, assuming (a) the offer is reasonably close to 2X and (b) the author displays no unreasonably nonlinear discontinuities in emotional state as the offering price is varied.

<comment><USER66> Presumably he would do the same if pitched 3X or 4X

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> @Patio11, I met you once on a trip to Tokyo. When/why did you decide to live in Tokyo other than the fact that your wife is Japanese? Any takeaways in terms of culture and operating a SaaS business from that region?

Thanks.

<comment><USER30> We live in Tokyo, as opposed to Ogaki, because a) my wife did not enjoy living in Ogaki due to social isolation and b) we recently greeted a daughter in October and were worried about the sociocultural implications of her growing up in Ogaki.

We live in Japan, as opposed to the US, mostly because I've been there for my entire adult life and kind of enjoy it. We might at some time decide to split our time between the US and Japan.

I wrote a long blog post about doing business in Japan which talks about running a SaaS company here in more depth than I can reasonably go into in a comment: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in- japan/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/)

</comment></comment><comment> FLUX-YOU Those rates make me go wat. I make $20/hr. :(

But can we apply this to the skills we'll need for starfighters.io? It's very easy to point to money (or even companies) lost by data breaches and say "I can help you prevent this", but the money you save may be whatever they pay for breach insurance or it may be literally everything they own. Case studies and deliverable targets (+millions of dollars from SEO and stuff) are really great when they're positive, but how do you negotiate this when you're selling protection against income loss?

<comment><USER68> Part of my background was doing and selling security engagements. Up until a few years ago, it was difficult to get senior leaders to wrap their head around security being anything but a cost center - even though it was always framed as "savings". That has changed in the past year alone. CiSO's are still hounded daily about security products which will "save money / prevent theft" \- but the risk to the business is now clear to leaders without security background. I still believe the adage [paraphrased] "People don't pay for the prevention, they pay for the cure"

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I wonder if you could have all interviewers fill out a brief survey and give the results candidates for reference - e.g. checkboxes of:

* This interviewer is comfortable talking about their salary

* This interviewer is comfortable talking about diversity and equality efforts

* This interviewer is comfortable talking about the visa and immigration process

* This interviewer had children during employ and is comfortable talking about the process

As an interviewee, knowing that I could ask direct questions instead of skirting around issues due to trying to be sensitive would drastically improve the experience.

</comment><comment><USER70> One thing I have noticed is that while "wage information" (including equity grants) are taboo and "net worth" is also taboo, "wealth management strategies" (and at times philosophies) are not nearly as taboo amongst the wealthier folks, perhaps because the conversation revolves around relative, rather than absolute, numbers.

</comment><comment><USER71> As someone about to start doing some consulting work, your advice couldn't have come a t a more fortuitous time. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER72> I am in support too. The problem is that most companies take implicit advantage of data obfuscation. Some people would ask to be paid more if they only knew.

It is great for employees, but not all companies are ready to do that, and I would guess most would not surive the moment of truth.

</comment><comment><USER73> It would be interesting to see networth along with the salary numbers.

<comment><USER30> That would involve a whole lot of making stuff up, since valuations for privately held tech companies dominate my net worth at for the last ~8 years. They only time you _know_ know what they're worth is when they are sold.

The liabilities side of the balance sheet is less complicated: I owed $22k in student loans at graduation, paid that off, incurred a fair bit of debt back in ~2013 (raided the 2012 tax fund to pay for my wedding and then 2013 ended up being radically less lucrative than expected), and anticipate paying it off this year.

<comment><USER74> At the end of the day, I have to believe you mentally calculate this net worth line (say, with a conservative 1x ARR on the investments) if you're to the point of talking to accountants about becoming an accredited investor.

Although props if you are conservative enough not to even entertain the thought of counting unhatched chickens. That's responsible, disciplined behavior. The kind that gives you the confidence to go launch Starfighter...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> >$20k a week! is astonishing. What kind of consulting service are you providing for the clients for that sum of money!?

<comment><USER76> I think the context is that OP is very conversant with both Japanese and US corporate/startup culture. That can't hurt.

<comment><USER77> No, he does (did) software marketing: [https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consultin...](https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consulting_1)

Japanese startup culture would be a _terrible_ niche to try to make any money in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> for the longest time i was kind of unnerved by how quickly previous employers said yes during negotiation, so I pushed my price up much higher hoping to have a better footing.

so far they've all said yes to what I considered very high.

</comment><comment><USER79> If the #1 rule everyone should know is 'Never Talk to Police', #2 should be 'Never Reveal Your Salary'.

</comment><comment><USER80> Talking about your salary as an employee will eventually take away your negotiating power. If everyone knew everyone's salary, salary would be minimized to the lowest possible market rate, so nobody gets upset.

<comment><USER80> It's the truth. If you look at countries like Sweden and Denmark where salaries and tax returns are public information, most salaries are all the same.

<comment><USER81> That's not really because of the tax rates being equal, there are many other reasons. For example, higher education is free, and labor organization is very high. This keeps blue-collar pay closer to white collar, flattening pay structures.

<comment><USER82> He didn't say anything about tax rates. What he said was that tax returns are public information, meaning you or I can look up anyone's income.

<comment><USER81> Yes. And I argued that in order to claim that this is what flattens structures rather than the many other factors, you need a control sample that has Scandinavian labor market structure (High tax, free higher education, single payer healthcare) BUT with non-public income. I'm not sure such a country exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> > The movement is rather Marxist in character, but this capitalist encourages > you to [...]

> I'm not a Marxist —

Yes, you said that in the opening sentence... Americans are very defensive about coming off as "Marxist"/"socialist".

<comment><USER84> American politicians are, for very good reasons, defensive about coming off as Socialist (except Bernie Sanders). Coming off as Marxist is completely out of the picture.

But 'patio11 is not a politician and I expect his language reflects strength of feeling more than anything else.

<comment><USER83> > But 'patio11 is not a politician and I expect his language reflects strength > of feeling more than anything else.

Yeah... strength of feeling of being perceived as "un-American".

<comment><USER84> If I meant that I wouldn't have bothered commenting as that is what you were saying in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> [https://twitter.com/CHOBITCOIN/status/594238763880075264](https://twitter.com/CHOBITCOIN/status/594238763880075264) claims MCV co-founder started the talkpay hashtag and she was racist. Notice how only Silicon Valley Americans are participating in the twitter hashtag. This hashtag will only help the shrill feminists, not the women who toil away in hardware factories in China and the outsourcing firms in India.

<comment><USER86> So what did you do today to solve those problems? Why do people in Pittsburgh count as "Silicon Valley" to you anyway?

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> For anyone curious about the _real_ roots of #talkpay, software developer Lauren Voswinkel kicked it off on Model View Culture: [https://modelviewculture.com/news/lets-talk-about- pay](https://modelviewculture.com/news/lets-talk-about-pay) (Background: [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/01/talkpay- hasht...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/01/talkpay-hashtag- twitter-worker-wages-titles-lauren-voswinkel))

So basically, a software dev announced a Twitter campaign on a Silicon Valley startup's website. Naturally, it only hits Hacker "News" when some white man placates fellow uninformed ideologues with _" I'm honestly troubled by joining a Marxist movement on May Day"_.

(Translating #talkpay into market theology — is this analogous to how Soviet commissars made bold ideas safe for consumption?)

BTW: May 1st commemorates the Chicago Haymarket affair, where workers went on strike for the 8-hour day. And four anarchists were martyred by the state via hanging.

<comment><USER88> He links to the MVC article literally in the _sixth_ word of the post. Patrick McKenzie is a very known figure on HN and runs several technology business. I'm sorry but there is nothing about gender or skin color here.</comment></comment>


Why don't we use data structures more in web applications? - <AUTHOR> http://peterstuifzand.nl/2011/04/20/web-applications-and-data-structures.html

<comment><USER2> _Code in web applications feels shoddily written, without a kind of bigger picture. For example if you display a product in the interface, why don't you have a data structure representing a product? Or if you have a form for creating a new product, why don't you have a data structure representing that?_

The code feels shoddily written because it _is_ shoddily written. Well written web applications do use these "data structures"; its just that they're called "models" rather than data structures.

</comment><comment><USER3> Because it's all abstracted away. B-trees are used in the underlying implementations of RDBMS. Other data stores such as MongoDB, Memcached, and Redis use hash tables.

Arrays, linked lists, and dictionaries are usually abstracted away by whatever scripting language is in use.

I can't think of common use cases for data structures like heaps/priority queues and graphs. Both come in handy for dependency management and loading assets from disk, like in the case of writing a package manager or a game. But nothing that complex is needed for your typical web app.</comment>


Facebook's legal team bans developer of F.B. Purity from Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.fbpurity.com/news/important-news-facebooks-legal-team-have-told-me-i-am-banned-from-facebook-because-of-f-b-purity/ <comment><USER2> Facebook really couldn't have been more generous to this guy. He's really milking the free publicity, too, with all the talk of this being the end of the road (which clearly it won't be, since there's nothing to stop him from continuing work using an alternate account). I can't even imagine what Facebook was thinking, they must have known that attempting to shut this down would backfire.

If I were Facebook and I really didn't want this extension or others like it to stay afloat, my approach would be simple... hire one guy whose only job is to monitor new releases of these extensions, and then make minor structural changes to the Facebook site that break them as soon as they're out. Become the mouse in a game of cat and mouse. When the extension keeps breaking within a day or two of each release, users would get fed up and stop using it, the devs would get overwhelmed with bug reports and complaints, and they'd all die slow, quiet deaths.

<comment><USER3> _"...there's nothing to stop him from continuing work using an alternate account..."_

Actually, there is. He's been informed by Facebook that they have revoked his right to use their site, which is their right. Any update that he issues to to the plugin would be solid evidence that he had been back on Facebook. In a US legal system that regularly bows to the will of large corporations, he could not only be sued, but also charged with a crime under the CFAA (unauthorized access) should he simply open another account.

<comment><USER4> Im not sure about the law in the USA, but in Germany I would beg to differ. Here, if you run a service, you do NOT have the right to arbitrarily reject users. The bigger your userbase is, the less you have that right. So as long as the developer acts within the law, he could demand access to Facebook.

<comment><USER5> > in Germany ... if you run a service, you do NOT have the right to > arbitrarily reject users

[citation needed]

No, seriously, I'm having a hard time believing this.

<comment><USER6> What is so hard to believe about this?

Capitalism is not a force of nature. Countries have an enormous amount of legislation in place to ensure companies can do business, and invest huge amounts of money in services supporting the private sector (infrastructure, education, etc).

These companies wield a tremendous amount of social power, especially services like Facebook. There's nothing odd about holding these companies to certain standards and laws that ensure they can not negatively influence the civil society from which they profit so much. Being allowed to refuse service to the very people that enable your business to exist is a privilege, not a right, and it comes with restrictions.

This is quite normal in most countries outside the US.

<comment><USER7> >What is so hard to believe about this?

That someone who owns a company does not have authority in who they will and will not do business with?

<comment><USER8> See _Civil Rights Act of 1964_. Many of the act's opponents were dyed-in-the- wool racists and bigots, and the rest of us can be glad that they lost. But there were some others who opposed the act because they understood that a slippery slope was being created.

<comment><USER5> Those are the limits most people are familiar with. They're reasonable and expected but even in the US businesses have 'the right to refuse service to anyone.' They work in the same way that you can fire someone, but you can't fire someone for being black, or a woman.

The OP claimed that that did not exist at all in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really wish this person, in the course of an otherwise sane argument (one that I feel for tremendously, as I have spent the last five years of my life organizing a community of people who do nothing but modify other peoples' software products, one that I always have felt has numerous analogies to what people do with GreaseMonkey scripts and browser extensions), didn't feel the need to play the "they don't own the letters FB" card... that is a ludicrous way of looking at trademark law (which involves a large dose of context sensitivity: if you are using FB for a coffee shop that is very different than an app that changes how people use a product that is often abbreviated FB). To then further claim that it stands for Fluff Busting and doesn't have anything to do with Facebook is just trying to play the audience for a fool: it doesn't matter what it "stands for", those letters would not have been chosen in this context had the name of the website been different.

<comment><USER10> I agree it is a weak argument but in any event I see the usage as legitimate in any event - as he is using the term 'FB' in a descriptive manner to help to describe the purpose of the product. There is nothing wrong with this in trade mark law generally provided in good faith (see nominative usage[0]).

Facebook would argue that the usage is piggy-backing on the goodwill in the name (as with the coffee shop example) but in this case, I think there is a very good reason why 'FB' is being utilised.

Personally speaking, I would argue this is why they are using other means to restrict the growth of the extension rather than using a more traditional cease and desist letter more geared to trade mark rights (at least as far as I'm aware).

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use>

<comment><USER11> > _I see the usage as legitimate in any event - as he is using the term 'FB' > in a descriptive manner to help to describe the purpose of the product. > There is nothing wrong with this in trade mark law generally provided in > good faith (see nominative usage[0])._

Agreed. Trademark law seems to be aimed at preventing companies from pretending to be some other company. This clearly doesn't apply to generic names, like "Sofa Vacuum" or "Photocopier Repair". But Facebook is something that's become de facto ubiquitous, a service almost universally used in the US - more ubiquitous than many generic things.

Surely, then, in the case of companies that provide services that relate to Facebook, there's justification to make direct reference to FB in their names? The major consideration is whether there's much likelihood of these companies being mistaken for the original company - but a name like "Purity for Facebook" (or even "FB Purity") seems like it wouldn't be confused as being from Facebook itself.

Companies are obliged to defend their trademarks, but I hope sanity prevails in the courts, and people get to call their applications "Windows RegistryMaster" or "Mac Backpack" or anything else that isn't confusing or misleading. I'm probably underestimating how messy it'll be to sort out justified (descriptive) usages from the ones that are just piggybacking, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, should the Internet Explorer team also be banned from facebook? They too "interfere with the way Facebook is rendered to its users".

<comment><USER13> How long until DRM browsers where userscripts will be considered piracy?

<comment><USER14> This is already the case with Chrome. See [http://superuser.com/questions/450893/how-to-install-a- priva...](http://superuser.com/questions/450893/how-to-install-a-private-user- script-in-chrome-21) which details how unauthorized userscripts are made difficult to install.

Even better, try pasting

       javascript:alert('hi');

into the address bar.

<comment><USER15> Those changes were made for security, to make social engineering attacks more difficult. You can still type JS into the address bar, you just can't copy and paste it.

<comment><USER16> Further, you _can_ copy and paste it into the console.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"...Facebook is blocking direct links to my site and libeling me by claiming the site is "Spammy and Unsafe..."_. Does anyone else see a problem with this, or is this justified? It feels like Facebook has crossed a line from guardian to censor.

<comment><USER18> > It feels like Facebook has crossed a line from guardian to censor.

I'm pretty sure Facebook crossed that line a _long_ time ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> They shouldn't be allowed to ban a company from having an account on Facebook for a web extension?

Will the developers of all the AdBlock variants need to worry about their accounts being blocked as well (as they surely are against Facebook's terms of service as well)?

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure if your first sentence is questioning someone else's statement, or if you meant "Shouldn't they not be allowed to ...".

If you meant to assert that they shouldn't be allowed to: why not? It's their website, and their TOS that's being ignored. They have every right to.

<comment><USER21> His point is that AdBlock to a certain extend does the same thing as this plugin. You don't want to see ads, great we'll remove them. It just doesn't go as far as this plug in does in removing inline adverts and re-organizing content, but that's because it a generic ad blocker and not Facebook specific.

So why is it one rule for this guy and another rule for AdBlock (or any other extension)?

I run AdBlock, and was shocked to see the amount of adverts on "normal" computers, truly shocking. Does that mean you should ban my account? They have a Facebook page: <https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus>

Maybe Google should stop offering AdBlock as a Chrome extension, given that advertising is a huge chunk of their business?

You are able to achieve a similar Greasemonkey Firefox plugin. You just need to find the correct scripts... <https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/>

The guy should just open source it, let's see Facebook try and keep up with that one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wow, anyone notice that you cannot post a link on Facebook to the fbpurity.com domain (even if you shorten the URL). Facebook is blocking the posting of the URL as it is in their words 'spammy or unsafe'.

<comment><USER23> I find it interesting and scary that one of the most used information sources in the world can be arbitrarily censored so easily.

I wonder if an article about some scandalous escapades of Facebook high-ups would be similarly censored.

<comment><USER24> Of course it would. Obligatory XKCD:

<http://xkcd.com/743/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wait, I don't get something: how can there be any legal ground for forbidding someone to create a plugin that changes Facebook appearance?

How is that different from creating your own browser that render sites however you want? Is Facebook going to try & sue Google when there is a rendering bug in Chrome? Will Facebook sue Userextensions.org?

Would Facebook sue someone whose viewing condition alters the way it appears also?

<comment><USER26> I don't think that they were claiming that it was illegal to do that. They claim that extension breaks their ToS, which is a private contract.

<comment><USER27> > their ToS, which is a private contract.

the ToS is between a facebook user and facebook, not the author of the extension and facebook. In fact, the author has no obligation whatsoever with facebook. If facebook does not like their site messsed with, they could detect and block this extension like how some sites block users with adblock running.

<comment><USER28> Facebook doesn't need to have a reason to ban you from their site. It's their site.

<comment><USER29> Yes. They can ban anyone they want. My question is how they know that Facebook user X and browser extension Y have any connection. If the extension's maker was marketing on Facebook, he should have expected this.

Meanwhile, yes, the TOS is between the user and the site. If Facebook wants to fight its users and say "if you don't send HTTP requests for our ad images, we'll stop answering your HTTP requests for our HTML pages," that's up to them.

I do think we need to push back whenever companies assert a right to control how a user views their site. That is fundamentally not how the web works. Every resource my browser requests, it requests by my implicit command to do so. Nobody has the right to tell me what to request; they only have a right to decide how they'll respond to my requests.

<comment><USER30> They made the connection because he was using Facebook itself to market his extension. I suspect that if he hadn't been doing that they would not have banned his account.

It doesn't make it right, but it does point out that future FB-extension developers should be cautious about connecting their FB account to their extension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I like the comments on that page. Various users complaining how evil and vile they find Facebook. I take it they are annoyed because they use Facebook and want to do client-side parsing.

Why not, y'know, just not use Facebook? Are we complicating this issue just to have a discussion? The solution is really simple, yet there seems to be tunnel vision when it comes to thinking of it.

<comment><USER32> In the past people would serve "stuff", and I'd have a client to receive that stuff.

The whole point of the WWW is that you must not rely on your user having a particular browser. Or operating system. Or display resolution. Or a display at all. You serve valid stuff and allow the client to parse it how they like. You can suggest nice font sizes and good contrast colours, but if they want to view it at 72 pt in pink on yellow they can.

Lots of the WWW ignores the fact that people may be using different screens or different whatever to view the content. Luckily we're moving away from fixed font sizes and a little fixed width blob of content in the middle of an otherwise white screen, but there are still weird lock ins around.

And Facebook are just following this trend - "this is our content, and it's our service, and you'll view it how we want you to".

Your wider point is a good one though. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads, with maybe a polite email explaining why they're not going to visit again.

<comment><USER33> > If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving > those ads..

If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting _ad servers_. Hence, AdBlock and Ghostery.

<comment><USER34> If they object to paying for the service, they should stop using the service- not just stop paying for it.

<comment><USER33> In what sense does directing one's browser to issue HTTP requests towards a foreign endpoint imply payment? Am I "paying" HN for POSTing this comment?

<comment><USER34> Sigh. You know full-well what I am talking about. Discussing it in terms of what is technically occurring does not achieve anything- Facebook is a service. The service is provided to you for free in return for showing you advertisements. If you block those advertisements then you are depriving Facebook of the means by which they pay for your presence on their service.

No, it is not a direct payment. Yes, it is a transaction.

<comment><USER33> Right, but it's worth pointing out that business models reliant on browser- requested ads are based on a faulty assumption that site owners control clients. Does Facebook's TOS include a statement to the effect of "the user must make a best effort to download all resources linked from each page"?

<comment><USER35> You realize that argument is like saying that you shouldn't have to pay for the bus if you're able to sneak on via the back doors without being seen.

Yes, there are ways to get around Facebook's ad serving and use the service "for free", in that sense.

Is it possible? Sure.. Is it legal? Probably.. Is it the right thing to do? Probably not..

If you object to the ads being served to you on Facebook, you should probably not use the service at all..

<comment><USER33> No, it's not like that _at all_.

It's more like I want to go to the store, so I invite the store to send me a driver who will use my car to drive me to the store. The store accepts my invitation, but when the driver shows up he wants to invite a bunch of hitchhikers into my car but I politely decline. Meanwhile, I'm driven to the store.

Your bus analogy assumes that Facebook owns and operates my browser. That is incorrect.

<comment><USER34> These analogies are stupid, but in your example it's more like you invite the store to send a driver and they say "sure, he's going to bring five people with him", you say "OK, fine", then when he arrives you forcibly eject the five people you agreed to ride with.

But like I said. Analogies get really dumb when you get too deeply into them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Facebook has no control over a user's browser. The most they can do is randomly ban users, like this guy.

The truth is this is something no website can control. If I want to view FB via a local proxy on my device that filters out commercial garbage, I can do so. And I can show any of my friends how to do the same. A little tcpserver, tcpclient and sed and we can clean things up quite nicely, with minimal fuss.

These attempts to control how someone views a website (e.g. see Twitter's recent efforts) are futile. This is digital, not print. A social website is mainly just text (html) and various resource files (e.g. images), it is all malleable in digital form and there are myriad ways to process it and render it, of which the Facebook developers' choice or a popular web browser developers' choice are only a few.

You have to wonder if FB's legal team even understands what is technically feasible and what isn't (like controlling how a page is viewed, on the client side).

</comment><comment><USER37> What exactly is the relevant law here.

Trademarks are (as I understand it) a way to stop other from trading _as_ you in some way. You can't pretend to be facebook, affiliated with facebook or use a name/symbol that makes it easy to get confused.

OTOH, if your product relates to another (Companion to "Fundamentals Of Microbiology by James O'Leary" by Timothy Goldman), is that not allowed? Companies can be called "Help with Windows" can't they?

What are the actual rules?

<comment><USER9> I am not certain there are, or even if there should be, steadfast rules: it largely comes down to whether there is a legitimate case for confusion. If you tried to prosecute this you would attempt to demonstrate cases where users were confused while potentially attempting to motivate that the name was chosen with at least some intention to confuse.

To look at your examples, however: the usage of prepositions changes things drastically. Can you imagine Microsoft creating a new product, "Microsoft Essentials"? If you saw that book, would you at least momentarily, wonder if it was a first-party product (book, software, whatever) from Microsoft? I am not certain about you, but that sounds like it could be them. However, if I saw "Essentials of Microsoft", I am pretty certain I wouldn't jump there: I would think that this is something describing Microsoft, not something built by Microsoft.

(edit: I thought I made that example up, but I then did a search for it after posting my comment, and it turns out that, in fact, that is so much the kind of thing that Microsoft would do that they pretty much have, with "Windows Live Essentials", "Windows Essentials", and "Microsoft Security Essentials", all being terms they've used. Yet, even with all of those usages, "Essentials of Microsoft" sounds more like a documentary or description than something they would have made themselves.)

This gets exceptionally bad with little tags like Apple's "i"; the "i" is so overwhelmingly "Apple's thing" that if I saw an app on someone's phone called "iVideo" I can't imagine not thinking "wow, Apple made a video service?", and when people choose a name like that, it is because they _know_ what the "i" means to people, and they want to look "more official" and "more like Apple", which even if the intention is not "I want them to think I _am_ Apple" is still in the bad zone.

Regardless, the core issue here isn't even this trademark problem, and that should probably have just been left at "we agreed this was fine, and now they are changing their minds". The more serious issue here is whether Facebook should be able to ban a user for building a product they don't like and whether building it, using it, or both are legally grounded.

<comment><USER38> You should get over the "i implies Apple" bias.

iGoogle (Wow, Apple made a Google service?) iRobot (iRobot Roomba, etc. - 1990) iBrowse (Amiga browser, 1996) iPlayer (BBC) iVideo (<http://www.ivideoapp.com/>)

A little googling (heh) will find lots more.

Trademarks need to be chosen from non-generic words and symbols, or must be qualified by a non-generic name (e.g., "Microsoft Windows" vs. "X/Windows").

Allowing one company to co-opt a letter of the alphabet pollutes the global namespace far too much.

<comment><USER39> I believe Apple has (had?) to license 'IPhone' from some telco.

<comment><USER40> Both iOS and iPhone are licensed from Cisco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think Facebook is not after FB Purity. They are after anyone who could come up with a plugin that scrapes the content and stores it to a db. People using the plugin would get access to the db in exchange: companies could look up prospective employees, ex-girlfriends spy on their defriended ex-boyfriends, etc.

Hell, the idea is so tempting that someone is definitely doing this already. And you'd only need a percentile of the users to get the information for every other facebook user.

<comment><USER42> Surely this can be said of any application that you give such permissions to with OAauth? We've already seen cases of people selling the information they gathered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I guess the EFF would offer help if they're asked for it?

Other than that, i don't think Facebook has much legal ground if the facts presented in the blog post are everything to the story...

IANAL, of course

<comment><USER44> I went to the EFF for help on a similar case once (I am the author of the old Chrome "Facebook Adblock" extension).

I went to the EFF for advice mostly, did I need to comply with the takedown? Should I be concerned that I couldn't meet all of the ridiculous demands (they wanted personally identifying information about everyone who had downloaded the extension!). EFF's response? In summary "We're not sure on this one… But can we blog about it? This may or may not cause you more problems."

I didn't hear from them again after I asked them to keep it quiet for the time being.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think we should go for some other alternative besides facebook before its too late.

<comment><USER12> Something like Diaspora?

<comment><USER46> It's a stretch to call Diaspora an "alternative" at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> People have to stop acting like they have 'the right' to use facebook. It is a product; they set out a couple of rules and act a certain way. Don't like it? Just don't use Facebook.

<comment><USER48> I agree that people do not have "the right" to use Facebook, neither are people obliged to.

That doesn't meant that you can't just not use Facebook. Social networks, in particular Facebook, have become a central part of social interaction. You can't simply use another network, because they're not interoperable. Your friends aren't there, and you'll be missing out.

<comment><USER27> Convince your friends that facebook as a platform is poor, and use another one (or, _gasp_ meet face to face, or call each other up, or sms, or use good ol' email and flickr).

<comment><USER49> Any soccermom-compatible tips as how to convince them?

<comment><USER50> Or grandparent compatible ones?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Probably the way to go with this is to open source it, such that anyone can independently share and compile it. But just in case anyone becomes fatigued of fighting the ridiculous control freakery of Mr Zuckerberg's lawyers there is always Friendica. Friendica is already open source. It's themeable. There is no spam or bribed posts, and you don't have to be trapped in some AOL-style walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER52> Interesting...I started using the "Missing e" plugin for Tumblr...but after Tumblr kept giving me dire warnings about how I was compromising my security and being an otherwise bad person, I disabled it, thinking that at some point Tumblr might just hellban the plugin users. (Also, the plugin wasn't as useful for my usecases as I had hoped.)

</comment><comment><USER53> Up-front disclaimer: I don't use facebook, but the precedent of this upsets me.

It seems to me that a website can define the API by which you access their site (some subset of HTTP), but can they really make a definitive claim to how data is rendered on the client side once that data is fetched through legitimate targets?

</comment><comment><USER54> At first I thought Facebook was the bad guy, and then I went to this guy's site. I'm legitimately surprised I didn't get a malware warning. This thing looks like it's from the '90s. Also, the begging for donations is slightly unbecoming when one of the primary purposes of your extension is to hide ads.

Furthermore, take a look at this obnoxious Facebook page that I'm surprised hasn't been taken down yet: <https://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity>

Isn't such heavy (and spammy, As-Seen-On-TV-Reminiscent) advertising about a product that flouts Facebook's functionalities on Facebook just playing with fire?

<comment><USER55> I don't understand where your malware remark comes from. I've visited his website (albeit with noscript on) and it looks a lot more readable than your average news site. Seems like a low blow to attack him over how the website looks, especially when you mention you were surprised it didn't serve malware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> this also means that blocking contents using Adblock extension violates T&C.

</comment><comment><USER36> It would be interesting to know what FB (or Twitter, for that matter) tells its advertisers about how they can purportedly control the appearance of commercial content to the user. Are they upfront about the realities and the risks? Are they leading the advertisers on? Are advertisers well-informed? What would advertisers have to say about the existence client-side options that can easily manipulate content to the user's preferences? It would be interesting to know.

</comment><comment><USER57> Purity user here. Love your product but think perhaps it's time to let go. Attacking you personally with lawyers will end badly for you. Their goal is not to "win" but just to delay, frustrate and (if you keep it up) bankrupt you because of all the costs. It's the standard strategy followed by lot's of big companies with deep pockets. Purity rocked and so do you. I'd put those talents to good use on other ideas.

<comment><USER4> Not true. Big companies do not always win just because they are big. I wonder in what kind of world you live. When somebody has more money then you, you bow down no matter what he wants from you? Common. A bit more courage!

<comment><USER57> Somebody or _FaceBook with it's infinite resources_? What's the best he can hope for? Get his old account back and continue building a _free_ product, all the while relying on the popularity of social network? If he becomes really big they'll turn it into a cat-and-mouse game like Apple did with other music players tapping in their iTunes. I was not thinking about courage, but rather about focus and choosing your battles.

<comment><USER4> > What's the best he can hope for?

He can simply continue his project in any way he likes. He doesnt need a facebook account to do so.

If he likes, he could also sue facebook for access. But as I said in another comment, I dont know US law enough to know if he would win.

As I understand it, he has a large userbase. So his project has a purpose. Just because its free, it doesnt mean its no good.

<comment><USER57> Ah but I didn't say it was "no good". Instead I said I was a user of Purity. Suing FB? Winning? We live in different world my friend ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Just in case there is still someone left out there who believes in Zuck's lie about openess of the internet and giving users ability to connect and access their information freely. This is your wakeup call. Facebook can shine on the outside but it will take predatory steps against anyone fucking around with them and affecting their ad sale stock display.

</comment><comment><USER59> Do they have any legal ground for this? A browser extension doesn't interact with the service directly, and is explicitly enabled by the user, therefore it should not be subject to the service's terms. What about extensions that affect every website? God forbid we end up with a 'no-extend' tag that disallows them.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm a little suspicious of this. It might be true but something doesn't sit quite right. Where's the full text? Or a scan of the letter. How do we know that this is done by Facebook's legal team? Why only this product and not others like SocialFixer?

Surely the legal team would present a legal response, like a cease and desist?

<comment><USER61> i dont think facebooks legal team like their missives being scrutinised as they put the "all rights reserved" disclaimer on each one. if i were to post a copy of their emails, im guessing they could use the DMCA law to get the posts taken down... is an "all rights reserved" signature legally binding?

<comment><USER62> Regular copyright law perhaps. Unless they protected those emails via some technological mechanism that you had to circumvent to publish, the DMCA isn't relevant.

That said, if nothing else there is a strong argument fair use argument for posting excerpts from the communications along with your rebuttals. It's not my money of course, so I understand the reluctance to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I develop a Greasemonkey/Tampermonkey script that adds features to the Facebook Comments Moderation Tool (<http://mattbusse.com/fcm-enhance/>).

I have not heard a peep from Facebook about it, although StatCounter tells me that at least someone there has seen it.

</comment><comment><USER64> >What do you think I should do? Keep up the fight, or let the _expletives deleted_ win?

You lose either way. Either, you fight to keep your app, and you're helping a company that doesn't respect your contributions, or you give up, and you lose with less effort.

Lose the easy way. Make an app for someone who cares.

</comment><comment><USER65> I find it rather interesting that I tried to post a link to this article on Facebook and got this:

<http://i.imgur.com/REvQR.png>

The content you're trying to link to is spammy or unsafe. If so, FB Purity is the best malware I've ever downloaded.

</comment><comment><USER66> Somebody on facebook has never heard of the Streisand Effect. This is actually a really great fix for facebook and it implements a lot of features I've really wanted. For example, the ability to hide sponsored stories.

</comment><comment><USER67> Sorry to hear this. I used F.B. Purity for several weeks/months. But good job in going public the way you did. You're now trending on HN.

</comment><comment><USER68> Somewhere, Barbara Streisand is shaking her head.

</comment><comment><USER69> I had never heard of f.b purity before today. Thanks to facebook for bringing this to my attention through hassling a developer.

</comment><comment><USER70> So if I build a scraper to give me my information from Facebook and archive it, am I violating the ToS?

I'm so sick of this era of "Let's all build a service and lock users in" and it pains me every time YC picks another company whose future is "build a huge social base and then we'll figure out how to monetize it".</comment>


Scientists Battle in Court Over Lucrative Patents for Gene-Editing Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/05/504454201/scientists-battle-in-court-over-lucrative-patents-for-gene-editing-tool <comment><USER2> Everybody was really excited about CRISPR for a while. The excitement has died down. Why?

More people came to understsand that CRISPR is just a useful tool, another one we've borrowed from the wonderful bacteria. Like restriction endonucleases, the new tech transforms how we do many processes in the lab, and probably also in the hospital.

However, that's all it is. A tool. A tool that makes what was really hard slightly easier. Modifying the DNA of a genome in place was _always_ the easy part. Biology does that all the time (viruses, lambda switch, yeast mating types, etc).

Figuring out what to change the DNA to, ensuring the modification is 100% accurate, in the right place, and no off-target effects, those are all harder problems. Biology requires thousands to millions of years to improve on phenotypes, and we're just now starting to realize how hard it is to change one part of the genome without adjusting for that change in a million other locations.

And CRISPR/cas9- the tech being argued over. It's not even that useful. It's blunt-end joining, newer techniques with fewer off target effects using overlap joining are being worked out. cas9 might be obsolete before anybody even gets a Nobel Prize for it!

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how you're measuring excitement, but I wouldn't say it's died down. The entire field is only four years old, after all. This really isn't enough time for a technology to mature.

<comment><USER4> From overhype to underestimating like in this post..a result of missing knowledge about CRISPR or molecular biology at all

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Applying existing technology in a novel way should not be patentable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not mentioned in this article is Cpf1, another CRISPR enzyme which is unambiguously owned by the Broad Institute and may have less off-target activity compared to Cas9. It could easily be that this entire disagreement is over nothing.</comment>


In Memory of Scott Dinsmore - <AUTHOR> http://liveyourlegend.net/in-memory-of-scott-dinsmore/ <comment><USER2> Truly sad. I only just found out about Scott through his well-known TED talk and was excited to learn more about him on his site, only to hear the news. :(</comment>


The New Bloomberg Digital - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/editor-in-chief-john-mickelthwait-on-new-bloomberg-redesign <comment><USER2> I want to support journalism, so I subscribe to WaPo and NYT at around $14 / ea. I think NYT also allows me to share the subscription with another person as well.

I would not pay $35 / mo for a single subscription.

</comment><comment><USER3> $35 per month for the digital subscription seems steep to me. Wall Street Journal provides nearly the same coverage at a fraction of the cost.

</comment><comment><USER4> $35 per month for the digital subscription is comparable to the Financial Times subscription. It looks like they are going after that reader demographic.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Our paywall will be a metered one. At launch, you can view 10 articles each month at no charge, as well as 30 minutes of the Bloomberg TV livestream daily. After 10 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber."</comment>


How context building and delegation of authority can strengthen small companies - <AUTHOR> https://maciejgalkiewicz.com/2019/01/07/context-building-and-delegation-of-authority/ <comment><AUTHOR> A long read for Monday morning: "How context building and delegation of authority can strengthen small organizations". It describes the path we went through when reorganizing our company. Lots of practical tips in the context of serious obstacles and issues. I hope that our lessons learned will help you with challenges at your organization!</comment>


What's wrong with tech entrepreneurship in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://ascottallison.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/whats-wrong-with-tech-entrepreneurship-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> Well I can say this: Europeans are doing pretty good, without their own Silicon Valleys, because the produce (contrary to USA): 1\. Cars - Germany, Sweden, France, Italy; 2\. Food you can actually eat (german/belgian chocolate - compare to Hershey's); 3\. Sun panels/sun energy: (Germany) 4\. Toys (Lego almost completely produced in Europe); ...and so on. Hi-tech research is often run by governments. Generally better (egalitarian/well payed) job environments decrease incentive to be entrepreneurial.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it still good to start with ios apps development? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all, I am planning to start the development of mobile apps on various platforms. I have done various study on ios and android.
both have pros and cons. but i need HN members suggestions.
what are your choice? iOS or Android? tell me why? can i make a decent living out any of them?
PS: plz do not give diplomatic answers like "it depends on the kind of app your developing." <comment><USER2> There really isn't a non-diplomatic response that works here. If you just want answers saying one or the other, there's the poll in the comments, but that's just personal preference to some extent - and I'm sure "personal preference" counts as diplomatic too.

The best I can do is that there's more Android devices, but I'm not sure which platform downloads more apps, particularly paid. Last I heard most of the money came from iOS.

If costs are an issue, then Android is likely to be cheaper to get started with, but that depends what you already have. I believe you need an OS X device to program for iOS, if you don't have one and costs matter, that's a big one. If you want a suite of testing devices, Nexus 4, 7 and 10 are cheaper than iPhone 5, iPad Mini and iPad in general. You probably have something from there already though, so that depends. iOS has a $99 developer fee, if costs matter that's another.

So, I won't give an answer that it depends on the kind of app you're developing, but I will say it depends on lots of factors you haven't given us. It might help if you detailed what you have gathered from your own studies on the platforms, and what specifically you wanted from this question.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you for the reply mcintyre1994.

cost involved in investing for the devices, upfront developer fees for a individual developer like me.

i have a MBP. so not an issue for programming. but i dont have an iphone. my app mostly relies on location services, accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer.

not sure whether these are all available in various android / samsung devices...!

<comment><USER2> To my knowledge, any recent device should have them, and location services should be available on fairly old devices - Google maintains that as part of Play Services. If you don't have an iPhone, do you have an Android device? I'd be weary to suggest developing anything until you scope out competitors - there's a LOT of apps on both platforms.

You can use play.google.com if you didn't know for Google Play apps, so if you're not an Android user that's a good place to start checking the ecosystem out. Maybe you can do something similar with the iTunes client, but I'm not too sure about that.

Oh, and another point to consider is there's far more variety among features etc on Android devices. In an attempt not to be diplomatic, that's probably a bad thing for a developer. Probably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> IF you are trying to change the world with your App..go Android, you'll reach more people. If you just need to make some side income definitely go with IOS.

If you want to change the world AND make money...I'll be rooting for you, let me know when you make it, and how.

</comment><comment><USER4> I released my ios app a week ago (<http://pixelhali.de>), only about 1300 downloads so far. few years ago, A friend and I released an app to the android store, we got 130k within one month.

it looks to me that the app market is kinda saturated.

</comment><comment><USER5> I suggest you develop on whatever your personal phone is.

It makes your apps better as you understand the more subtle things of the OS and how apps usually work on it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Poll: Android

</comment><comment><USER7> I have two answers for you:

1\. If you want to make money from app sales and/or ads, Apple's iOS devices still have the upper hand, and probably will retain that advantage for over a year from now.

2\. If you want the more intellectually rewarding choice, with more varied opportunities among projects, and you don't mind waiting for Android app revenue to catch up, choose Android.

With Android, you can modify the OS, or, short of that, make "middleware" that is install-able and that extends system functionality by providing new APIs all apps can use. It's not just an apps API.

<comment><AUTHOR> hi zigurd,

point 1 - noted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Poll: iOS</comment>


Social media scamsters  - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2012/08/09/social_media_scamsters/

<comment><AUTHOR> I want a vertical search engine that lets me know everything about books (reviews, authors, articles), now.</comment>


Show HN: Fluokitten - category theory in idiomatic Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/uncomplicate/fluokitten/

<comment><AUTHOR> I have just released v 0.3.0. of a Clojure library for monad (et al.) programming. There is a lot of documentation ant tutorials at the accompanying website [http://http://fluokitten.uncomplicate.org/](http://http://fluokitten.uncomplicate.org/)

I'll lurk around here today, so if you have any questions, comments, observations, please do post :)</comment>