A world managed by apps is closed for those without a smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.techsociotech.com/2013/12/a-world-managed-by-apps-is-closed-for.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> I used to be irritated by the number of "welfare moms" I see around town with smartphones. Certainly they should focus on their shoddily-clothen children first, right? Well I shared that thought with my brother, who has more experience with these kinds of things, and he explained that their smartphone is their only Internet connection. With Internet access becoming a necessary utility, a smartphone is the cheapest entry point to the Internet. Now I don't judge.

<comment><USER3> You can identify "welfare moms"? You should totally post an article describing how you've managed to ID the economic status of people remotely.

Either that, or check your goddamn privilege and stop making assumptions about people.

<comment><USER4> While I apprecaite your passion...I think there is one thing worth mentioning about generalpf's post: they stated how someone informed them of something they had not known, they are openly stating they realize they were wrong in their original assumption, and they are now spreading that same information to others in the hopes (I assume) of correcting others who might feel the same as they previously did.

When looking at any problem, social or otherwise, the newly informed that become champions are just as important to the very passionate and an entire movement. We don't need to say "Good job" every time someone turns around, but we don't need to beat them up either.

(edit) My apologies, looks like I commented off thread...this was in response to forgotten pass' comment.

<comment><USER5> * they are openly stating they realize they were wrong in their original assumption*

You do not get it boss. He did not say he was wrong about assuming their social status, but he was in mistake for assuming they had better spend their money else where other than on a smartphone. For all we know he still looks at those people as "welfare moms."

<comment><USER6> Is welfare mom an insult I wasn't aware of? Assuming someone has shoddy clothes because they can't afford better seems reasonable to me. It would be insulting only to imply that they're wasting their money and neglecting important things on purpose.

Edit: I mean I'm aware of 'welfare queen' as an insult but I've never seen 'welfare mom' have that same meaning, or anything other than 'mom on welfare'. And when you're talking about socioeconomic status 'welfare' doesn't have to be quite literal, just signifying a level of income.

<comment><USER7> I think the term "welfare mom" creates a 'figure'. It is baking the 'welfare' part into her idenity as a mother and seems distinct from just a mother who happens to be claiming welfare.

This is used in race studies but also class studies for instance 'chav' in the UK and your use works much the same way. It means you are identifying someone in a way that it is most likely they would not identify themselves.

<comment><USER6> I think it's fair to bake economics into their identity when the conversation is solely about economics, and not about specific people.

<comment><USER7> I would not really call it a issue of economics, since you are assuming someone elses economic situation it becomes a social issue.

You are matching your perception of someone with your pre-existing notions of them - typifying them in a sense. There are so many things to consider, really.

If you see someone in a Lamborghini, you might assume they are rich. But they may in fact be massively in debt. Therefore the analysis becomes a social one - about there access to funds or cars and not necessarily related to their economic status.

If you see a mother with a phone you think she couldn't / shouldn't be able to afford (I realise they used this example as a past belief but may as well use it). The phone could have been a gift, it could have been won - there are so many factors that you are reducing to one.

<comment><USER6> If you see one, it might have been a gift or won. If you see 10 out of 20 with them, it becomes reasonable to assume it was a purchase.

The point of identifying a trend is to reduce the factors. If there isn't in fact a trend, that's when you look very closely at the individual person, or that's the point where you embarrassedly drop the subject because you made a false correlation.

Side note: I consider you rich if you can make payments on expensive-enough things, even if your debt is greater than your assets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The people who are economically disadvantaged enough that acquiring a new or replacing a broken smart handheld is just fricking hard,_

The wording here (and further down in the article) makes it sound as if it's an undisputed fact that everybody _wants_ a smart phone and the only reason not to have one is an economical one. But some people just choose not to own a smart phone, or any mobile phone for that matter. Reasons for that include e.g. privacy concerns, but also that to some people a phone would just not create enough of a benefit. This, however, might change of course if the trend identified in the article (more and more services are substantially harder to use without a phone) continues.

 _will find themselves burdened always having only secondary access to the world: always having to type 20 digit numbers though hostile phone menu trees to finish topping up, having to go to a specific location to find the right form and find it is out of stock this week and wasting a trip, carry little top-up cards and keys they may lose, not being able to remotely check on their homes or work, not reaping the benefits of a world going digital._

Granted, I live in a country that is 10 years behind compared to the US in terms of technical pervasion, but I don't think I know anyone who uses their phone to remotely check on their homes or work. As far as I can tell, people around me still use phones mostly to make calls (shocking, I know) and (the tech-savvy ones) to do Google searches. That's by far the lion share.

I think the next generation though, i.e., today's teenagers actually do use apps, but for the 30+ in my immediate surroundings that's a rare exception. This is certainly different in the states.

Therefore the perception over here is a bit different from countries like the US or Japan where technology is embraced more willingly or widely. But the effects described in the article might well make it to other countries as well, if only with a bit of a delay. But I don't think that that's too dramatic. I personally think that many of the advantages of the digital age are things that are not crucial to living a happy life. Apps etc. can make a lot of things a lot easier or more convenient, but you can just as easy live a life where the things that are made easier do not matter all that much. Consequently, the digital divide described in the article might become a reality (or not) but it remains to be seen if its influence on the average person's life is more than marginal.

<comment><USER9> " _I personally think that many of the advantages of the digital age are things that are not crucial to living a happy life._ "

Given the causal link between relative productivity and happiness, I'd depreciate the odds of living happily without modern connectivity as the value of that connectivity is furthered.

<comment><USER10> Is there a proven causal link between smartphones and productivity? I can imagine that managers love them, but what about everyone else?

Not saying that they're bad, but I think for most people they're more like Facebook. Nobody would ever claim that Facebook improved humanity's productivity, but one can still feel "locked out" without it.

<comment><USER11> I could claim facebook improved social productivity. Made it easier to organize events, for one thing.

<comment><USER12> Plenty of people seem to spend a lot of working hours on facebook, which I assume decreases productivity. I know some people who appear to do nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 1\. Mobile devices are cheaper than PCs. One reason mobile ended the PC era is that the manufacturing economies of mobile devices are better than those for PCs.

2\. Mobile connectivity is more available than fixed connectivity, even to the poor.

3\. Touch interfaces are friendlier than PC interfaces.

So if you want to make a realistic comparison, find out what a person with limited resources is going to buy first: A smart mobile device, or a PC?

<comment><USER14> _Mobile devices are cheaper than PCs. One reason mobile ended the PC era is that the manufacturing economies of mobile devices are better than those for PCs._

In the long run they're actually more expensive. You don't change your PC every two years. Actually, if you don't play video games you don't even need to change it for five years or more. Most smartphone users I know change devices every 18 months.

 _Touch interfaces are friendlier than PC interfaces._

I see a lot of people who have developed mild RSI problems in their wrists from usage of mobile devices, especially tablets. In the PC we have a wonderful accessory which is the trackball. I prefer it 10x times more than dragging my whole hand over a hard surface. Give it another 10 years and we'd end up with a whole generation with severe health problems in their hands.

<comment><USER15> >In the long run they're actually more expensive. You don't change your PC every two years. Actually, if you don't play video games you don't even need to change it for five years or more. Most smartphone users I know change devices every 18 months.

I suspect this is a short term phenomena. Smartphones have been getting better at an exceptional rate, wheras computers have recently reached the point of 'good enough', where people do not need to upgrade as often. Combined with the free upgrade system that a lot of companies have, and the connection with contracts, it is easy to imagine that the current state is not long term. Also, the poor are exactly the people who would continue to use an old device that is good enough, even after a shinier model comes out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No one is missing out, at least not yet, and I don't think they'll miss out any time soon. I say this as a person who has a Nest thermostat, Philips Hue lights, and a Nissan Leaf. All of those items can be remotely accessed with my phone. I've never fiddled with the Nest when I'm not home (turned the heat down from bed once. Once, because I could.) With the lights I have no choice but to control them from the phone. But that was my choice to buy lights that require a computer to control. I can remotely turn the heat or A/C on in the Leaf, start charging, or check status. When the free 3 years is up on that feature, I would only pay a pittance to continue service.

Let's also consider that the Nest is $279, the Hue lights run $60 _per bulb_ , and the Leaf is a $30K car (all in USD). If you can afford those, you can afford an iPhone.

The author thinks there's a gap that doesn't exist, and my guess is that is because he lives surrounded by that remotely-controlled world (and perhaps helps create products to fit that world). Let me give another side to it: it's a pain in the ass. Fire up the phone, unlock it, go find the app, fiddle with the controls...all to just turn on a light in the living room or turn up the heat. Yes, pity the po' folk who are reduced to walking over and flipping a light switch.

No one is missing out. The title is accurate in the app-controlled world is closed to those without the devices. But I don't buy the argument that one gains an advantage by living in that world. As it stands now, it's a nice-to- have world of expensive devices that fit well with the smartphone you already have. Let's wring our hands when app-only devices like door locks and thermostats become commodities and the devices to control them are still expensive. I predict it won't happen, as the price of smart door locks comes down so will the price of smartphones.

<comment><USER17> I agree with your point, although I think you miss the author's point slightly. In our personal lives, the choice to buy the cheap analog version of things is still an option, while those of us with access to technology can leverage it in a way that makes our lives easier. This "widens the gap" between the haves and have-nots. At the same time, as technology advances, tools and services that the poor relied on (e.g. payphones, print newspapers, and coin-operated parking meters) are declining in availability. There is an ever-increasing pressure on people to adopt new technology, and those who can't afford to must find ways to work around these limits.

In a way, we already live in the world described in the article. Imagine the impact on cars when they first arrived. "The wealthy can afford to take jobs farther away, while the poor are limited to work only as far as they can walk!" Having the perspective of a century of progress, I can tell you the impact, and I doubt many would argue that automobiles are a net loss to society. Unfortunately it sometimes seems like the only equitable solution is to restrict the use of technology so that those without it are not too disadvantaged (i.e. "If we limit cars to walking speed, everyone will have the same job opportunities").

<comment><USER16> Rather than miss the point, I think I just avoided it. I guess it was the opening ("we can unlock our doors with a phone, but what about the poor?") and his implication that it will all soon be nothing but iPhones (because that's the biggest market, the author alleges, which isn't even accurate if one isn't selling the app itself for money).

> At the same time, as technology advances, tools and services that the poor > relied on (e.g. payphones, print newspapers, and coin-operated parking > meters) are declining in availability.

Those are actually good examples that are actually being displaced and for which no cheap option exists, and might have better made the author's point in the opening. I just don't see cheap lightbulbs being displaced by $60 Hue bulbs any time soon. Thanks for the differing perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't particularly like smartphones. Yes, I have mobile devices, but only for professional reasons. I don't depend on a single mobile app.

My main phone is an old symbian nokia, and one charge lasts a week.

As a web developer I think that most apps should be websites anyway, and I'm always stunned when some basic tools are app-only. Seriously, how hard is it to build a basic web UI if you have an API for your app anyway?

</comment><comment><USER19> Some people just need to find something bad on everything, no matter how good it is.

I had been in countries in Africa, and people there have smartphones, not the latest model, and not everyone, but the person who has shares his with other people when they need Internet. Not fiber quality but enough for sending a message to mom or knowing the price in the market of something you sell.

When I was a kid computers were expensive, they had 16 or 256 colors!! and 800x600 screen resolution was luxurious. People will save for getting one additional megabyte to memory, and networking computers were a pain in the *ss.

Now everybody has access to thousands of times more in their pocket, but... there must be something wrong about that.

</comment><comment><USER20> Smartphones (and the distinction at the low end is blurring fast) are simply displacing PCs, as was inevitable and anticipated by people such as Mr Gates when he launched his war on Symbian.

The fun part about this Internet of Things business is it will go one of two ways; either everything will end up linking through the cloud/NSA, a paradigm web browsers can handle, or it will work with a lot more peer-to-peer connections and long running services, for which the only viable frameworks today are native apps. There are a lot of vested interests pushing the former option, but I'm more willing to bet that the latter is what actually happens.

<comment><USER21> I'd bet that the cloud will get very big for a while... and then it'll rain... ok, ok, and then native applications will take off.

But first, every thing will be on the cloud. And the move from the cloud into native will be caused by a set of really bad experiences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a serious issue, but I don't think it was given a very serious treatment by the author. Smartphones offer objective benefits, and maybe cheap smartphones are worth buying even for the very poor. In that case, making everything smartphone based would benefit everyone.

The claim that requiring smartphones to access certain services will be a net minus for the poor is not obvious. For example, what if welfare could only be applied for online, but the process was much simpler than paper forms? Would this help or hurt the poor?

</comment><comment><USER23> """ The fiercest critics of technology still focus on the ephemeral have-and- have-not divide, but that flimsy border is a distraction. The significant threshold of technological development lies at the boundary between commonplace and ubiquity, between the have-laters and the "all have." When critics asked us champions of the internet what we were going to do about the digital divide and I said "nothing," I added a challenge: "If you want to worry about something, don't worry about the folks who are currently offline. They'll stampede on faster than you think. Instead you should worry about what we are going to do when everyone is online. When the internet has six billion people, and they are all e-mailing at once, when no one is disconnected and always on day and night, when everything is digital and nothing offline, when the internet is ubiquitous. That will produce unintended consequences worth worrying about." """ \--Kevin Kelly (What Technology Wants)

</comment><comment><USER24> This is not unlike what was said about a world without payphones:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/pay- ph...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/pay-phones-a- technology-for-the-poor-thats-about-to-get-left-hanging/258406/)

And now the poor get prepaid cell phones or cheap contract service and they chat on their cell phones while in the Greyhound bus station. As smartphones get cheap they will become just as ubiquitous.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> this article is more interesting to me because of the development paradigm it outlines: make the mobile phone the hub of the internet of things. this is in contrast to the smart fridges and thermostats that I thought were going to be the manifestation.

</comment><comment><USER25> Apps for absolutely everything, not even when it makes any sense. It probably won't take long until some genious somes up with an iToliet which can only be flushed with some stupid app, and when we're at it, why not an app to wipe your but.</comment>


Twitter responds to IFFFT - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/21/twitter-api-dick-costolo/

<comment><USER2> It _feels_ like a fairly passive aggressive message. Kicking off with a "blame the victim" jibe in the homework line (I'm not commenting on whether they are actually the victims here, merely the phrasing), it strikes an initial tone of "this is _their_ fault, not ours".

Moving on to an entirely disingenuous non-apology ("i'm sorry you were offended" vs. "i'm sorry I offended you"), it doesn't get much better. Then on to an appeal to authority - we tried it with other developers and _they_ didn't care at all.

The thing is, I can't criticise from a business level. I have no idea what their internal world looks like (we can all have our own guesses). But the message is inept at best. The upshot is that it's hard to imagine anyone building something (innovative or not) on the Twitter platform. If it's within the TOCs today, would this message give you confidence that it will be next week?

By attempting to kick out half of your hangers on, you end up kicking out all of your hangers on. Seems like a lesson worth heeding for giants and hangers on alike.

<comment><USER3> The "homework" line is referring to people blaming unrelated events on Twitter's API changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "We continue to spend an extraordinary amount of money providing a free API" > that's being accessed at "a ridiculous rate of queries per second." As > Twitter continues to build out its platform, it will do so in an open way, > he added.

If the proportion of API calls are increasingly from Twitter's own apps, does that count?

Also related, this quote from @dickc:

> Twitter's committed to stay open & is building free tools to access the > stream, saying it's closing misses bigger picture

(via <https://twitter.com/saila/status/249248288472199169>)

Maybe I am indeed missing the big picture but I feel like their words aren't matching up with their actions. Unless they mean they'll be open to consumers and getting more users onto the network, without consideration to third-party developers who want to create their own vision on top of the API.

(I acknowledge that Twitter has the right to do all this and more--that's not my point.)

<comment><USER5> Well, the question being raised by Costolo is, "why don't we know what the big picture is yet, are you just holding it over our heads?"

I've said since the beginning of these recent actions that there's going to be another shoe to drop (the last weeks' actions all being the first shoe). I'll say now that "the big picture" he mentions but neglects to describe is indeed this other shoe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thank you tech crunch, I'm now more confused than before. So, what does the homework quote have to do with anything. Either IFTTT is allowed to use the Twitter API or they are not. I don't see how a laziness accusation is relevant.

<comment><USER7> Why are you blaming TC? That's Twitter's CEO trying to shift the blame off of Twitter.

<comment><USER5> Because if TC isn't clarifying, then the reporter is acting only as a stenographer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm confused. Does TechCrunch know that the issue at hand is a (fairly recent) change in Twitter's _Policy_ , not API?

<comment><USER9> For what it's worth, the policy changes ship with changes to the API. TechCrunch published an article yesterday stating that IFTTT was in violation of Twitter's policy for "months," so it'd be a fair assumption that this is along that same channel.

> [http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been- > in-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/ifttt-has-actually-been-in- > violation-of-twitters-api-for-months-todays-move-unrelated-to-1-1/)

<comment><USER10> For what it's worth, sometimes a policy/api change is a paper tiger. When Twitter decided to do the cutoff on the 27th, that made it legit. No sense scaring users earlier than you have to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It looks to me like twitter is hurting for money, and they are trying to reduce costs by reducing API usage.

It could also be they want more ads, and 3rd party usage of the API would bypass that.

If anyone wanted to buy them, now would be a good time.

<comment><USER12> I wonder what would have happened if twitter had said all free accounts must use the twitter app or website, and pro-accounts (let's say $5/month) can use the full API with 3rd party apps?

<comment><USER13> It could mean less money overall, if advertisers want to target the kind of user who would sign up for an ad-free pro account.

<comment><USER12> I never said ad-free, but I guess certain clients could block or hide those.

<comment><USER14> $5 a month would be totally worth it for a lot of people. Even with promoted tweets, etc., I think people would go for it.

Charge, but let people do whatever they want with their own data ... give them access to their full history of their own tweets and maybe some other advanced features. Meanwhile let everyone use twitter.com for free if they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So if someone kicks me in the nuts, it didn't actually happen because I am "one data point"?

The Twitter CEO's statements are reminiscent of the BlackBerry co-CEOs laughing at the iPhone's lack of tactile keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER16> So rather than clarify the new Twitter Policies, it would be more interesting to be told _why_ they are making these changes.

Everyone is assuming it's because they want to lock down their platform... & lock it down along what seem pretty moveable and arbitrary lines. Why else would they do it? I'm a casual observer, but I have been following pretty carefully, and it's completely unclear to me.

So -- If it's not, they should just say. If it is, the Twitter developer ecosystem has plenty of reason to be worried about their homework.

<comment><USER17> My guess is that they want full control. If you look at Apple it is clear that there are huge advantages in having this control. Not only is it possible to build a better and more streamlined experience, it's also much easier to monetize a Twitter that they fully control.

<comment><USER18> They found really difficult to monetize their product, since it's only composed of 140 characters displayed in a moltitude of format. Now they will directly control the way tweets are displayed, for example they will soon introduce the Twitter Card format (a sort like the facebook wall story with picture/video/flash game embedded)

Think of the several monetization "experiments" of Facebook: ads, sponsored likes, sponsored posts, page offers, ecc They were been possibile only because Facebook manage the way his data is displayed across all platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> IFTTT* (IF This Then That)

</comment><comment><USER20> Fundamentally, the problem is that usage of twitter is both as a social network and an easy to use messaging protocol. Twitter wants you to use it solely as a social network, because that's where the money is.

It's unfortunate because it was a hugely useful platform for "protocol" uses. It's an easy way to tie together two incompatible systems, and a good way to provide automated notifications without additional clients.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why do people consider it a right to have constant access to a Twitter API? Twitter is a private, for-profit company, not a charity, no?

<comment><USER22> Even a charity has the right to do what they want (sans contracts).

The outrage is because they changed their possession and it's serving as a warning to other developers who are interested in developing on their platform. It's important to point out when a business is hostile or friendly to API developers so they'll know if it's worth their time to develop a product based on said API.

<comment><USER23> The answer lies somewhere between <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and- switch> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-up_problem>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Dick sez: Play nice or I'm taking my ball and going home.

</comment><comment><USER25> If I need a lawyer to use your API, well then, bye!</comment>


Sandstorm for Work is Ready - <AUTHOR> https://sandstorm.io/news/2016-08-31-sandstorm-for-work-ready <comment><AUTHOR> I think that positioning Sandstorm as a productivity suite is smart. It's more concrete than "cloud operating system".</comment>


Car Sales at 10-Year Low - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02auto.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> I think the main reason for this is people stopped buying SUVs and Trucks. And those used to make up a very large proportion of car sales.

And the reason for that is simple really. Price of gas makes SUVs drop like a rock in value, and make used cars a lot more affordable. Why would I spend 40K for a new SUV, if I can get a 2 year old model for 20K

<comment><USER3> Bingo. My dad just bought a car last month. The dealers we went to all said "You can't get a Prius or a Fit with less than a 6 month wait - nobody has any in stock." Meanwhile their lots were completely full-up with SUVs that they can't sell.

<comment><USER4> Which car did he buy?

<comment><USER3> Used Honda Civic, it had just come in earlier that day. Civics and Corollas still seem to have a decent supply (at least here in Massachusetts), but the smaller cars were all gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> with entry level cars priced at 15k the average person has to work years just to save up enough money to buy a new car.

Have cars always been this expensive in relation to american wages?

<comment><USER3> From Wikipedia's entry on the Model-T:

"In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[18]"

4 months pay for an average American making $45k/year is $15k. (Not including taxes, but I'm not sure if they're included in the Model-T figures above.)

I recently asked my parents how much they paid for their first cars, and IIRC the answer was about $3k on a $6k/year salary, for _6 months_ of pay. (This was around 1970.) It'd seem that cars were more expensive then.

<comment><USER6> Ah cool info. I'm wondering whether the actual costs of ownership were higher or lower now or then though?

I imagine now with the price of gas and insurance the costs may come close.

In addition, let's not forget the fact that now families tend to have more than 1 car whereas before they used to have one.

<comment><USER3> Price of gas as a percentage of household income is significantly lower now than it was in the 70s, even with today's $4/gal. Remember that in inflation- adjusted terms, gas prices in 1973 were about $3.30. Figure in 50% or so real wage growth since then and we'd need about $5/gal gas to equal then.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Global race to develop self-navigating ships leaves U.S. behind - <AUTHOR> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article209480874.html <comment><USER2> Not long ago, I read William Langewiesche's Vanity Fair article on the El Faro disaster. Not long before that, I read the Navy Times opinion piece about today's Navy not being very good at driving ships any more. I took from these articles that, even with modern ships, navigation is difficult and dangerous. How will autonomous ships handle heavy weather and crowded shipping lanes?</comment>


The Attack on GitHub Must Stop - <AUTHOR> http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-attack-on-github-must-stop.html <comment><USER2> China breaks internet for western users to enforce their own laws everywhere.

USA breaks non-US sites one way or another to enforce their own lays everywhere (example: forcing multinationals to remove content from european- hosted sites).

Why is one good and the other bad?</comment>


Ask HN: How many downloads/day do you need to be in Top apps in AppStore? - <AUTHOR>

Followings are some examples but if you have any other cases, please share you experiences.
http://www.quora.com/How-many-downloads-day-do-you-need-to-be-a-Top-10-Free-iPhone-app
Top 10 free is roughly 30K-120K downloads per day. We had a top five free app getting 120K in one day with an overall rank of #3 before dropping.
http://www.quora.com/How-many-downloads-do-some-of-the-Top-50-free-iPhone-apps-get-per-day
Apps in the top 10 free can range from 50-100K+ downloads a day with the number one free app having the potential to get even more with the correct marketing. <comment><USER2> AppShopper's app hit the #9 spot of overall free and was around 150,000 downloads in a day. This was September 2010. These number ranges are moving targets as more people are buying iOS devices.

So there's Top Paid and Top Free lists. Top Free is in that range, while Top Paid is significantly less. The numbers for the top Paid have been reported on a bit more.

Here are Christmas numbers (~78,000) for the #2 Paid app: [http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/28/camera-reaches- over-7800...](http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/28/camera-reaches- over-78000-sales-on-christmas-day-alone/)

Christmas numbers are hard to compare as there is a surge on Christmas day. And a bit of a sustained run afterwards due to the new devices in circulation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know much about free apps, but I did learn that #50 (the highest I have made it) on the iPad Top Grossing list is worth about $2k per day.</comment>


Estonia Uses the Euro, and the Economy is Booming - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/47691090

<comment><USER2> It seems every other week there's an article about Estonia on HN. Could be observational bias since I've moved here, but it seems Estonia is doing great tech-wise.</comment>


What happens when you try to send politically sensitive messages on WeChat - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/960948/what-happens-when-you-try-to-send-politically-sensitive-messages-on-wechat/ <comment><USER2> Going by the screenshots, it looks like the censorship isn't that sophisticated.

Looks like it is just simple string matching, not even censoring based on the context of previous messages.</comment>


The most coveted cigars will never be smoked - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160921-the-most-coveted-cigars-will-never-be-smoked-heres-why <comment><USER2> There is at present a sort of golden age for the cigar afficionado, individual countries highly regulate and tax cigars (priced even more highly than cigarettes for reasons that escape me), but are quite happy to allow vendors to sell internationally, the upshot is for any country outside the US it's far cheaper to buy from neighbouring countries or from the other side of the world for that matter...

How long it will last, who knows, sooner or later cross border sales of tobacco will be banned, but for the time being those who can are stocking up while they can. Cigars last for decades and peak in the 5-25 year range depending on the cigar so right now there's no downside to buying as many as you can, even the none special editions (cuban) are probably good for about 10% a year in appreciation.

Personally I'm buying a box a month.

<comment><USER3> If you are not currently working for Big Tobacco, then you should be. You just convinced me to start smoking.

<comment><USER2> Hah, I'm very hesitant to discuss cigar smoking outside of forums dedicated to it because people tend not to know a lot about it and lump it in with cigarettes.

In reality they're quite different, for one I have personally never found cigars in any way addictive, they certainly do have nicotine in them, lots of nicotine but since you don't inhale (mouth only) cigar smoke it seems like you don't get the super fast hit that cigarette smokers do which in turn means they're not addictive? I'm not sure of the science behind it, all I know is myself and the others who I know in the hobby do consider cigars a hobby to be picked up and put down, in a weird way the actual collecting becomes more important than the smoking. I know people who maybe smoke 1 cigar a month but are constantly buying and selling to expand their collections.

<comment><USER4> As someone who used to smoke an average of one pack of cigarettes a day, for five years before quitting, I am curious: what's the appeal of smoking cigars? I only smoked one once and even then I missed out on the authentic experience, because nobody told me you're not supposed to inhale the smoke...

<comment><USER5> Bear in mind that cigars are considered a positional good. Quite a few people smoke them to show off. Other than that it's a way to relax and chill down since it takes a while to smoke the whole thing. You pair it with a good scotch and/or a chocolate and you get the whole experience. This is especially true with pipes which also last longer and have milder and more aromatic flavors. Take for example Lord of the Rings. Every time someone wants to contemplate on an issue they smoke a pipe, especially Gandalf. It's all over the movie although few people take notice.

<comment><USER6> Dont disagree with your point but I think Gandalf was smoking hobbit weed, not tobacco. Which would probably help with contemplation as well ;)

<comment><USER7> It's tobacco. The prologue to Lord of the Rings calls it "a variety probably of Nicotiana", the narrator refers to it directly as tobacco in "The Two Towers", and in The Hobbit it's exclusively referred to as tobacco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The headline teases "Here's why" and then never seems to explain it. Can someone find it, or distill it down to a single sentence?

<comment><USER9> Because people value collecting them more than they do smoking them. Would you smoke your 5 million dollar cigar collection? Probably not. It's burning money!

<comment><USER8> Doesn't this line of reasoning apply to everything from wine to truffles?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't know anyone in tech who appreciates cigars. It doesn't go with things like rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, ultramarathoning, CrossFit, or redditing that our fields are known for. I love them, but what's the HN connection?

<comment><USER11> > rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, ultramarathoning

When did the IT or CS field become known for those pursuits? They seem more like a list of modern sports, that many in their twenties would enjoy. Perhaps you are associating with a particular age group subset, rather than the broader cross-section of the industry from 20-80+ which is a lot harder to pin down in terms of stereotypical hobbies.

I found it quite amusing when ESR decided to rewrite the Jargon File to re- define martial arts as the 'true' hacker pastime [1] since that is what he seems to enjoy...?

> [...] martial arts seems to have become firmly established as the hacker > exercise form of choice [...]

[1] [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/physical.html](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/physical.html)

<comment><USER12> I'm not super familiar with the history on this, but the reasoning he gave seemed plausible. From the anectdote about a random group he joined consisting of a high percentage of martial artists, to the slang analogizing programming with martial arts.

Sure he might be biased because he also does martial arts, but it is also plausible from the stance that he is unbiased.

<comment><USER13> Oh ESR is pretty notorious in these parts. Have you seen his sex tips page?

<comment><USER12> ...

I have not. Could you link me?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Adaptive UI in iOS - <AUTHOR> https://realm.io/news/gotocph-sam-davies-adaptive-ui-ios/ <comment><USER2> Don't usually associate iOS with fragmentation, but makes sense when it comes to screen sizes I guess - esp w the iPad pro now

<comment><USER3> Fragmentation is also increased with apple's recent obsession with breaking iOS and/or changing how fundamental APIs work.

<comment><USER4> Are you sure thats recent? Its been like that ever since I started programming for the iOS platform (3 years ago) and before its something you would hear about pretty consistently with each major iOS update.

<comment><USER3> I feel like it got much worse when iOS 7 launched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> iOS's adaptive display lumps displays into four different categories. A category can have vastly different screen sizes and even different aspect ratios. They are...

iPad Pro, iPad (portrait, landscape)

iPhone 6 Plus (landscape)

iPhone 6, 5, 4S (landscape)

iPhone 6 Plus, 6, 5, 4S (portrait)

AutoLayout is suppose to fill in the gaps between the different resolutions here, but it doesn't do that great of a job at it. It relies heavily on hardcoded values rather than dynamic values based on the containers size. That coupled with only having 4 distinct size classes makes laying out most views near impossible to rely on AutoLayout alone, you have to manually change the constraints at runtime.

I don't find iOS's layout system to be very adaptive at all. The only thing saving it is there are only 6 different resolutions in the entire eco system. With a huge majority of the users on only one or two of those resolutions.

</comment><comment><USER5> Jesus, iPhone app development is pretty much as terrible as I always imagined. Not in the actual development itself, but in convention and mindset.</comment>


The Other Taxes: Who Pays Them? - <AUTHOR> http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/the-other-taxes-who-pays-them/

<comment><USER2> Other factors have to be considered as well. The wealthy or super-wealthy (individuals or companies) are usually more mobile. A middle-class, working individual, with a mortgage, is pinned down to a greater degree. It also depends on the mobility of capital goods. If you have big, hard-to-move infrastructure, you are pinned down. "Patriotic" millionaires notwithstanding, turning the screw on the rich and mobile may just mean more capital flight. Screwing the heavy industries would just discourage investment in that sector (i.e. Detroit).

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh. I thought this article was going to be about the price of food, transportation, and many goods industries are driven up because of regulation. EX, why shipping by train is so disastrously expensive that it cancels out the efficiencies, due to regulation. Or why you can't get a decent meal for less than $5, where natural equilibrium prices should settle in at $1, and how this _really_ hurts the poor.

Instead, it's just about how taxes aren't progressive enough to suit this guy. What a shame.

<comment><USER4> Right. He's basically complaining that certain individual taxes (like sales tax) serve to mitigate the progressive nature of income tax, making the net result still progressive but not as steep as he wants. That is a fair position to argue, but not really a new contribution to the discussion (this makes it off-topic for HN.)

An analysis of corporate taxes and regulations, and how they are passed on to consumers, would be a genuinely _new_ contribution. This would be especially interesting if feedback effects were included -- paying sales tax on something with an inflated price due to other taxes, for example. We have a government that specializes in taxes (and fees and regulatory costs) that are hidden from the consumer; it would be a great contribution to show which subset of consumers actually ends up paying those.</comment></comment>


Due to CASL, Canadian Carriers Might Be Locking Out Your Users - <AUTHOR> https://twilioinc.wpengine.com/2017/11/due-to-casl-canadian-carriers-might-be-locking-out-your-users.html <comment><USER2> It prevented me to verify my identity with my (non Canadian)bank for a good while :-(</comment>


Windows 8: HTML5 and AJAX/JavaScript == Modern UIs - <AUTHOR> http://samgentile.com/Web/asp-net/windows-8-html5-and-ajax-javascript-modern-uis-html5-ajax-javascript-jquery/ <comment><USER2> It makes perfect sense that HTML5/JS would overtake traditional UI frameworks on the client side. Doing Win32, Java Swing, etc. was a horrible experience compared to the relative niceness of HTML/JS.

Adobe Flex/AIR was probably the best client UI dev experience I've had. MXML and Actionscript 3 is VERY similar to HTML/JS. Given the benefits of so many platforms moving towards HTML/JS as a kind of common language for UI development, these are exciting times.

<comment><USER3> The niceness is in the Javascript, not HTML. HTML is made for text layout, not stateful UIs.

<comment><USER4> Javascript is an implied part of DOM scripting. HTML5 is an umbrella term covering all of these technologies and is much more than text layout.

<comment><USER3> Right the DOM is the problem. Javascript exists without the DOM. Just imagine Cocoa written using Javascript instead of Objective-C

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We don't need "modern" UI frameworks we need well designed UI frameworks. HTML isn't designed for stateful UIs. I'm hoping that Cocoa will eventually move away from Objective-C and towards a more dynamic (expressive) language (Javascript would be great).

<comment><USER5> By "dynamic" do you mean "interpreted"? Because Objective-C is a pretty dynamic and flexible language, otherwise.

<comment><USER3> Objective-C does have performSelector, but its awkward to use. It lacks the ability to easily add slots to objects and you often have to work with C types.

Perhaps "expressive" would be a better distinction. Javascript is a much more expressive language, meaning that I have to do a lot less work to accomplish the same end.

<comment><USER4> > Objective-C does have performSelector, but its awkward to use. It lacks the > ability to easily add slots to objects and you often have to work with C > types.

-performSelector: takes a selector string, and its variants allow you to pass objects as arguments. I'm not sure why you think it involves C types or why you cite it as the feature that makes Objective-C dynamic (there's considerably more to it than that).

<comment><USER3> I was talking about Objective-C not performSelector, although performSelector does illustrate some problems with C types. You can't return a value with perform selector precisely because of C types (unless you wanted performSelectorReturningInt ... etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is it with people trying jQuery and immediately jumping the gun into "I can solve all of the world's problems with this!" land? Sure, it's great for DOM interaction, but that's simply not enough for any decent UI framework. The jQueryUI project has what, like 10 widgets despite being around for years? Wooooweeee, you can sure base an OS UI off of that! And I don't care how many jQuery plugins I can find on Google; trying to fit them in together in some cohesive manner is a joke compared to an actual full featured UI framework that uses a MVC or MVVM structure.

</comment><comment><USER7> Seems to be down, anyone have a backup?

HTML/JS/CSS has been the worst UI experience I've had, I'm interested to read how this has changed. It's gotten increasingly better since jQuery was released but still feels like pulling teeth working with cross browser hacks.

<comment><USER8> With modern JS frameworks you don't need to mess with cross-browser stuff at all. That's basically a solved problem.

Given that, HTML/JS/CSS is quite good. And the obvious benefit is your code will run everywhere.

<comment><USER7> Well I've used modern frameworks and it's still far from running exactly the same across all browsers and OS's - especially if you'd like to use CSS3/HTML5. It's still a major pain in the ass to do something as simple as center a div vertically on a page. I don't consider that modern.

<comment><USER9> One man's ass-pain is another's eccentric but ultimately reasonable idiom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sorry, but Windows Forms or WPF are far ahead of HTML5. Just look at the amount and quality of third party libraries over .NET. And the speed of development is really fast, just a drag & drop in the IDE and some events to fill.

<comment><USER11> There is nothing inherent about HTML5 can't do this, it's just a lack of tooling and libraries. The Windows 8 demo shows that the performance is already there. Look at GWT for a possible development model. It's very possible that MS will deliver something that looks very much like GWT UI Builder or Blend but targeting HTML5 and scriptable by Javascript if necessary. I'd be very surprised if MS didn't have a drop-and-drop designer solution given that this is their bread and butter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Javascript + HTML5 is a a pretty ideal view layer, but MS almost certainly will need to provide a higher level story like GWT to satisfy their developers and support large teams. Google has shifted entirely to GWT over hand-coded javascript for their applications. It seems unlikely that MS would have worse tooling than Google, particularly given that MS can leverage their development tools (.NET + future compiler as a service).

Is there any information on what development model MS is thinking about?

<comment><USER8> > Google has shifted entirely to GWT over hand-coded javascript for their > applications.

Interesting. Source?

> It seems unlikely that MS would have worse tooling than Google, particularly > given that MS can leverage their development tools (.NET + future compiler > as a service).

It would not be hard to build a .NET to JS compiler as a parallel to GWT. In fact there are already a few such projects, one of them even a Microsoft one (Volta).

I would not be surprised to see Microsoft put some effort behind such a project. However there have been no indications so far.

<comment><USER11> No source. Just look at every new product they release. All of them that started post GWT are based on GWT as far as I can tell. The new AdWords interface being the latest and Wave coming before that. Even small apps, like their new discovery API browser are GWT based. It makes sense too. They need to support long-run development of large applications. That just becomes much easier given something like GWT and all the associated tooling that comes with it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to talk to someone who's been a victim of child abuse - <AUTHOR>

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask such questions, but I'm out of choices, so I figured I'd give it a shot.
Without me knowing what emotions it would set off, yesterday I pointed my girlfriend to read the HuffPO article about Bill Zeller (after reading about it on HN). To my complete surprise and shock, when we were together last night, she told me that reading that article brought back a lot of memories: she was abused by a cousin of hers (a female) when she was 6.
She said that at the time, she felt guilty: for both letting her do this, experiencing joy, knowing about things she did not think she should have know about that early in her life and more. This is also the reason she has trouble trusting people (She doesn't drink, and despite me asking her over and over for the reason, she never told why until last night). She does not feel like she was scarred sexually (we have a healthy sexual life despite our relationship being relatively short, but she's also enjoyed a similarly healthy sexual life with her ex-boyfriends). However, she did say that she does think about that time every so often, and feels depressed whenever she does. She speaks with this cousin of hers from time-to-time but says they never discuss what happened (the cousin, btw, was 11 at the time). She has also not told anybody besides me and her ex-boyfriend (whom she was with for a long time). She has not spoken with her parents about it, not a professional.
My response, when she told me all this was of complete shock, and anger at the cousin. I told her that she has nothing to feel guilty about, that this isn't something she had control over and that all the guilt lies with her cousin. I also asked her if she had similar feelings towards life as Zeller did (re: suicide) - No. I also told her that she should think about speaking with a professional: this might bring out and resolve issues she does not even know exist.
Beyond this, I did not know what else to tell her. I have absolutely no training in mental health (all knowledge I have on the subject, come from TV shows/movies). I was hoping to solicit some advice from the HN community regarding how I could talk to her, to make her feel better, more comfortable and stop feeling the guilt she does from this incident. <comment><USER2> Let her talk.

Listen.

Hug her (if she wants - some people find that digging up these memories causes them to temporarily feel uncomfortable when touched).

Don't tell her that she has to talk about it. Or pressure her into it. Let her know that you're willing to listen, and let her come around to it in her own time.

If she wants to see a professional then support that - but don't feel that everyone necessarily _needs_ to. If she can deal with it herself then that's fine. If not, and she wants help, then that's fine too.

Remember that this is personal, and different for everyone. And only she knows how she's dealing with it.

Things will, most likely, get bad and then get better again. Digging stuff up is painful, and it will make her sensitive, and more likely to be triggered by things. Give her time, and space, and she will probably get past this, and be happier in the long run for it. But you can't rush it, you just have to live through it.

Bear in mind that you will (most likely) get frustrated because you want her to get better and deal with this in the way that you think is healthiest. Try not to take this frustration out on her.

Oh, and take it as a compliment that she trusts you enough to talk to you about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think dwelling on a bad experience strengthens the memory in your head. So once you've learned what you can from it, make a conscious effort not to think about events that make you suffer.

Doing something physical can help take you out of your head. Things like Qi Gong or Tai Chi. Meditation also can help calm that part of your brain that tends to dwell on things.

But these are approaches that a person can take if they are interested in addressing the problem. In other words, if your girlfriend is asking you what she can do, make suggestions. It may be that she just wants you to listen.

</comment><comment><USER4> Accept her. Don't try to fix her. Don't let this change your view of her too much. There is a lot more to her than this. Don't magnify the issue by focusing on it excessively. If your shock and anger remain, get help for the difficulty you are having in coping with your feelings. Don't make it her problem that you are shocked and angry. Not all men react that way.

Peace.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is remarkably similar to someone I knew. She definitely decided to find her own way. After the time to develop some trust, she availed herself of my ear and perhaps a bit of my perspective, but did not want to be told what to do.

(She was also more than a bit of a user, emotionally and intellectually but not materially. But I'm not ready to conflate the experience and these qualities.

Professionally, she was quite successful.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I totally understand your need for guidance, but this might be better put on Reddit.com. There would be a lot more people answering your query, and topics like this are common and acceptable there, and I've always seen a lot of quality answers. If you get a lot of advice here, that's fine, but keep Reddit in mind as an alternative.</comment>


Show HN: Choremate is a Chore Chart for Adults - <AUTHOR> https://choremate.co <comment><AUTHOR> Hi I'm Keyan I made Choremate.

According to the 2018 Census, 37% of American adults live in shared housing. With the recent pandemic shared housing will likely continue to increase.

Living in shared housing is hard, because as most of us know from economics sharing a commons is tragic. I've been living in shared housing since college. Aside from privacy issues, the biggest problem for me in shared housing is distributing cleaning and maintenance in a fair way. Choremate aims to solve the Tragedy of the Commons using research done by Elinor Olstrom and in the form of a chore chart.

I've written in depth about Choremate and the application of Elinor Olstrom's work here: [https://keyankousha.com/the-best-chore-chart-in-the- world.ht...](https://keyankousha.com/the-best-chore-chart-in-the-world.html)

If you live in shared housing, check us out! We have a demo [https://choremate.co/demo](https://choremate.co/demo)</comment>


Covid drug makes virus mutate to death - <AUTHOR> https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/541/eabb5883 <comment><USER2> Is a drug that makes a virus to mutate, very safe on the long run?

It seems to me that cancer drug resistance uses a mutation strategy to evade the drug effect?

Is this analogy valid for Covid?</comment>


Study Sheds Light on How Pigeons Navigate by Magnetic Field - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/science/study-sheds-light-on-how-pigeons-navigate-by-magnetic-field.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting. Does this make pigeons (and similar such creatures that navigate by using magnetic field data) vulnerable when magnetic fields are disrupted either by field reversal or a solar storm?</comment>


Was WeWork Ever Going to Work? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/nyregion/wework-Adam-Neumann.html <comment><USER2> This isn't the best article, but there's a point that I think is useful:

> What the ordinary person might interpret as a con game or sheer lunacy, the > heavily credentialed investor, with his TED Talk understanding of things, > will reliably regard as brilliant eccentricity.

When people hear about typical con games, like the Pigeon Drop [1], their reaction is often, "Thank goodness I'm so smart I'll never fall for a con!" But that's incorrect. Maybe I wouldn't fall for that con, but that just means the con wasn't for me.

Things like Theranos and WeWork fooled people who were plenty smart. But they are, like everybody, trying to model the world using 3 pounds of meat. It's not enough. We take shortcuts. And all of those shortcuts have flaws.

One of our industry's collective flaws is a belief in the genius, that revolutionary smart guy who's just so smartily smart that they see things the ordinaries don't, and will therefore be very successful. But that leaves us vulnerable to people who perform the tropes of genius. Hands up everybody who's had to work with an "architect" like that.

Another is of course the genius entrepreneur, who has a grand vision to transform the world. As we can see, investors just love that. They've been trained to love it by all the "genius entrepreneur" stories that are generated by finding somebody successful and then filling in the narrative mad-lib with events from their lives. And of course, finding that "genius" entrepreneur lets investors see themselves as geniuses of a different kind. It lets investors justify their belief they deserve to be super rich.

Let's hope things like Uber and Theranos and WeWork put enough holes in that myth that we'll stop being vulnerable to people who put on the genius outfit and do the genius performance. Because personally, I've been tired of it for years.

[1] [https://abc7news.com/news/vallejo-man-loses-$10000-in- pigeon...](https://abc7news.com/news/vallejo-man-loses-$10000-in-pigeon-drop- scam/801976/)

<comment><USER3> I think it's pretty unfair to lump Uber (which really has transformed the world in a real way) with Theranos (outright fraud) and WeWork (possibly a viable but semi boring business that got way over hyped).

<comment><USER4> Uber didn't transform the World. They offered cheaper taxis. Now wework actually transformed the world by bringing cheaper and flashier rental office space which has revolutionized the way most people use rental office space... /s Though in truth, neither did anything of notice. They used VC to undercut the market in a non-sustainable fashion.

<comment><USER5> Did you take a taxi any time before uber came along? Unless you're in a major city (NY, LA, London), or are somewhere like an airport, you'd need to call them, potentially hours in advance in rural areas, and organize a pick up. Knowing if you should tip or not was always confusing, the fares were expensive, and you had no real way to address grievances against the driver, unless they do something illegal and get pulled over.

Nowadays, almost every taxi company has an app, which emulates all the same functionality as Uber. Uber's way of changing the world was one of user experience and logistics. Not the actual transportation, which as you call out, existed long before.

<comment><USER2> Sure. Uber definitely did better taxi dispatch. But if Kalanick had kept working on Red Swoosh, does anybody really believe taxi dispatch today would be just like it was in 2005?

I'd say no. The cab industry was already tracking vehicle GPS circa 2005: [http://www.taxi-library.org/mccurdy.htm](http://www.taxi- library.org/mccurdy.htm)

Google Maps Android launched in 2008. It doesn't take a genius to say, "What if..." And people did. Like this 2010 paper about experiments with Java apps to do taxi dispatch in Singapore: [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dddc/21e65523932240164d2bb4...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dddc/21e65523932240164d2bb4b1bb0fdac5479c.pdf)

So people are giving Uber credit for something that would have happened anyhow. And they're doing that because Kalanick was the one most willing to burn money and break laws, not because he was such a creative genius.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> WeWork could have been successful if they focused on the core business and operated lean and mean. While they didn't invent the co-working space model there was certainly room to improve it.

However the company was just simply not run very well, was very unfocused on all sorts of random side businesses/acquisitions, and was massively bloated in terms of its team.

Ultimately it was a good idea poorly executed from a business standpoint. The market has clearly turned (for the better most would say) in that people want to see real businesses with real sustainable business models. Fruit water on tap and glossy marketing materials don't replace the core fundamentals of a good business. It's refreshing to see the market finally calling BS and expecting more.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not buying the fact that co-working is an untenable business model. For small businesses, there is overhead in signing a long term lease, making sure that facilities are maintained, and that they are conducive to a productive working environment. I also definitely see value in having a community that spans different companies, as the mindshare must have benefits. From the perspective of a consultant/freelancer, I can't think of a better way to learn about potential clients' challenges and possible opportunities than having a conversation at the water cooler with them.WeWork isn't the only co-working space in town, but it has a tremendous amount of brand recognition in this space.

I don't think WeWork was doomed from the start. I think their execution was sloppy. I think they made some short-sighted financing decisions which they are paying for now. I think they have a long uphill battle, but I do think that there is something of value that they are providing.

<comment><USER8> I worked for a startup that was based on the east coast but trying to build their presence on the west coast. We looked into a lot of options including visiting several WeWork offices to look into having a virtual office or a mailing address at the very least.

We wanted to use WeWork but it was too expensive to be practical for us, and we ended up getting a deal with a local coworking space. I imagine this was the case for most startups looking to start an office out of WeWork.

So I'm inclined to agree with you that the demand was there, but the execution was poor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not at those insane valuations, no.

The business model, at its core, is a fine one. But it's one that's already out there, working fine in a slow, normal, boring way for companies like Regus. I've used Regus spaces, they're fine. They're not cool, trendy startup collab spaces with beanbags and baristas, but AFAICT they are actually more conducive to real grown-up business use.

Maybe there is a market for a more startup-focused temporary office space business. But it's not one that's going to shake the foundations of the world, nor bring in 100x the investment for VCs.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, they just don't have much of a moat to allow them to command monopoly rents. Whatever innovations they introduce, others can copy, and most companies would just switch over to a cheaper provider once their WeWork lease comes up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not a WeWork fan, but why does it matter if Adam Neumann could be a branch manager at Staples?

Steve Jobs was known for walking around Reed College barefoot in the snow, but that didn't stop him & Woz from building Apple.

<comment><USER12> I got the impression that the author was arguing exactly against this kind of equivalency. People can be unusual and also successful. This doesn't mean that being unusual is a valid predictor of success. Also that its pretty ironic for something that would be seen as a potential red flag for someone making a relatively low risk decision (i.e. hiring a branch manager) would suddenly be viewed as an asset by someone making multi-million dollar investments. I'm not sure I agree with the premise that everyone is blinded by some "great man" theory of innovation except for we street-wise low-middle class. But I feel the point about the double standard is valid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I will say two things. First it has been a real question whether WeWork made any sense forever and it is a real business case that you can analyze rationally and quantifiably.

Second this article is not that at all. It's contribution was entirely in its headline. The rest of the article is a high school essay of rhetorical filler to meet the demand for anti-capitalist theatre.

While many would have the natural inclination to agree with the conclusion, this article is not the best example of the argument unless you are tracking the politics of society's increasingly negative views of Silicon Valley.

Finally the New York Times style inspired me to write equally pretentiously. How did I do? :)

</comment><comment><USER10> > What the ordinary person might interpret as a con game or sheer lunacy, the > heavily credentialed investor, with his TED Talk understanding of things, > will reliably regard as brilliant eccentricity.

Most people are more scared of looking silly than they are excited about getting rich. The handful who aren't occasionally make a bad investment (Theranos, WeWork, etc.) but also a lot of them become centimillionaires and billionaires.

I'm definitely in the "more scared of looking silly" category, but I like to think I also have the self-awareness to recognize this as a character flaw, and not broadcast it proudly and obliviously to the whole world in the NYT.

</comment><comment><USER14> WeWork matched short duration assets to long duration liabilities. It was incredibly anti-robust and never going to work.

<comment><USER3> Banks borrow short and lend long. It works out OK for them.

<comment><USER15> Banks have leverage. We Work does not: We Work can't rent out the same chair to 20 people at once.

<comment><USER16> Maybe not 20, but I expect that the WeWork hot desk membership does this to an extent. Remote workers don't usually show up every day.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Metrics and 1 Blog Story - <AUTHOR> https://www.agrigoryan.me/post/3-metrics-1-blog-story <comment><AUTHOR> what metrics you track for your blog?</comment>


Show HN: Weekend Project - FollowTrial - <AUTHOR>

http://www.followtrial.com
Over the past couple of weeks I've been working on a little Twitter app. FollowTrial takes the hassle of tasting what Twitter users have to offer.
Every few months I was going thru my following list and culling dead weight, but it was a painful and laborious process. So I came up with idea for FollowTrial.
On FollowTrial you follow a twitter user for a trial period, 7 to 30 days, close to the end of the trial period, you get a reminder that your trial is coming to an end, with a instructions how to keep following the user, or FollowTrial will automatically unfollow the user and you can carry on as normal. <comment><USER2> Will it monitor my twitter activity and automatically add all my new follows to the FollowTrial activity? or do I have to go to the site and manually do it each time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not in the MVP release, but that's a great feature to include in the next version!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clicky: <http://www.followtrial.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> When I joined, they automatically signed me up to follow them! (C'mon, why not sign me up for a trial at least). In addition, they added mobile tweets. THANKS, Follow Trial, I love getting spam on my phone!

<comment><AUTHOR> The system follows you so that it can DM you when the trial expires, otherwise it would need to ask you your email address since the Twitter API doesn't include that.

As for any mobile tweets you're getting that has nothing to do with FollowTrial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is called concept. Really useful service. Awesome !</comment>


The Death of Upcoming.org - <AUTHOR> http://waxy.org/2013/04/the_death_of_upcomingorg/

<comment><USER2> It's a little bit crazy that all the responsibility of preserving this data resides with the Archive Team[1] and the Internet Archive[2].

[1] <http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page>

[2] <https://archive.org/web/web.php>

<comment><USER3> I just want to point out that anyone can help the Archive Team by running an "Archive Team Warrior". It's a virtual machine which scrapes things that need to be archived. Currently Posterous, Formspring, various URL shorteners and of course upcoming.org (in testing).

It's really easy to set up and I would encourage anyone remotely interested to give it a try. More info & download: [http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveTeam_Warri...](http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveTeam_Warrior)

<comment><USER2> I ran one for Yahoo! Messages the other week and it was super simple. Really great work on these.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been working on a replacement for Upcoming, called Daypace <http://www.daypace.com> but I'm still a good ways from getting a product out there. I really liked Upcoming before it went to hell with Yahoo and around 2010 got motivated to do something about it, but I wanted to also recommend events to people and avoid the spam that slowly took Upcoming down, and it's been a tough road getting that all to work and since I work at the most amazing non-profit in the world, I don't get a lot of time to put into it.

Regardless, thanks to the people who built Upcoming and sorry that Yahoo ruined it.

<comment><USER2> Find a way to take advantage of the Upcoming shutdown.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for your project :)

At minimum, get email addresses.

<comment><USER5> An interesting way to bootstrap Daypace (and make conversion easier for people coming from Upcoming) could be to import recent events from Upcoming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _But Yahoo's security makes scraping a challenge. Every time I've tried to > back up pages, I can only grab a few files with curl or httrack before Yahoo > starts serving blank responses. (...) If you have any idea how to scrape > Upcoming's events_

A way to bypass security is to distribute scraping over many, many clients.

For example, one could write a browser extension and have many people use it at once; this would have the added benefit of being able to scrape information generated by JavaScript (just do the scraping after the page is completely rendered).

If needed, I can help write such an extension for Chrome (I had written one for del.icio.us some time ago that did exactly that, and another one for IMDb).

(There would be a public server that would serve the ids of events yet to scrape, and that would receive the data that has been scraped).

But for this strategy to work, you need a big community of people willing to help (people who will download the extension and let it run).

Also, 11 days is a very short time...

<comment><AUTHOR> ArchiveTeam already has a system for this. It's called "the warrior" and it's a little VirtualBox image that checks in with a centralized tracker to get jobs and upload rescued data. You can see the progress on the "upcoming" project here <http://tracker.archiveteam.org/upcoming/>

<comment><USER6> Ok, I'm downloading this as I speak.

Still, it's much more complex than a simple webapp (so the audience willing to do it will be smaller). If there are ~12 million events, we need 10 000 people downloading 1200 pages...

(On the leaderboard, the number of "to do" items goes up instead of down: what does it mean?)

<comment><USER7> I don't know for sure, but I expect it's a standard thing from any spidering. Let's say you start at one page and find 10 links; your tracker will then have 10 items. If each of those pages has 10 links, then you can then have up to 100 items to download. And so on.

Over time you're going to start seeing duplicates (ie. things you've already archived/spidered), so the number will go down. But while you're still in the 'discovery' stage it's going to go up and up.

<comment><USER6> Oh, ok, if you're spidering.

But here's what the OP said: _"All of Upcoming's events and venues use autoincremented ids, making it dead simple to generate a list of URLs to scrape."_

So if you go from 1 to {current_id} you get them all, and you have the list at the start.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While this was a good bit too "name-droppy" for my taste, it's an interesting story of decision-regret and a decent chronicle of a founder's view post acquisition. At the time, the decision to sell seemed right, and it would've been difficult to predict it would be so poorly managed by Yahoo! Along the way.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. I have to think that it's hardly like there are (or were at the time) no precedents. When you sell out^H^H^H your company, you give up ultimate control.

However, I've thought about this space a bit (the idea-space, not the solution-space), and I've always come to the conclusion it's too fragmented. Too many things to too many different players.

But if the field is wide open again, better to invite someone into the opportunity than dwell on the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> All due respect to the work that went into Upcoming, but _nothing_ else covers the same things? I can't remember why or when I stopped using Upcoming.org, but I was also using Eventful and Zvents at the same time, and I still use them, for the exact same thing.

<comment><USER11> Disclosure: 1st non-founding employee at Upcoming.

Neither Eventful nor Zvents plugs into a social network to tell you stuff your friends are going to, or thinking of going to. They are just sites that list events.

Facebook's events app is 100% social - it tells you what your friends are doing, and you can follow artists and venues. There are comments and such on events. It is also good for non-public, informal events, something Upcoming didn't do very well. But Facebook is useless for searching for events in your area, or for following a particular genre of music or type of event.

Upcoming was sort of in the middle of all of this. Which was part of the problem. It was hard to know what to focus on. I'm not sure the story is entirely that Yahoo was solely to blame for fucking it up. We also made some incorrect decisions. But unquestionably, Yahoo didn't give us the resources to succeed, and prioritized things that had nothing to do with success.

<comment><USER10> I'm sorry to hear about your loss. It always sucks to have something you worked so hard on (your baby) canned or messed around with for non-technical reasons.

Your elucidation of Upcoming's differences helps explain why I probably quit using it, though. While I can see the value in having your social network plugged into a facet of (if not your entire) calendar, I personally choose not to participate in third party social networks. If Upcoming required a Facebook (or just about any other social network) login, I would have stopped using it. And yes, I realize I'm in the minority :)

<comment><USER11> Thanks but I don't feel any "loss". It's just a website. Even if it had been a smashing success, by now it would either have evolved into something else or died a natural death.

It was a loss of time for me, maybe, but I was well compensated. The real losers were all the community members who built it into something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I liked Upcoming a lot, and when I needed to learn Django I took a shot at making a similar clone, (though focused more on today and this weekend, something most sites don't feature).

It's a bit homely and needs some love but I'd like to upgrade and open-source it. Anyone interested? It's called kpasa and is at <http://lax.kpasa.co/> .

</comment><comment><USER13> I made <http://1fiesta.com>

It only works in Oregon, USA, but let me know if it it's interesting to you guys and I'll add more places.

Also check out the list I made at <http://dontstartaneventaggregator.1fiesta.com/>

</comment><comment><USER14> This post-mortem from the Plancast founder which I just came across is also worth reading for those interested in events: <http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/22/post-mortem-for-plancast/>

</comment><comment><USER15> Curious who else on HN does large scale scraping? (ie can scrape Upcoming.com entire site within a few days)

<comment><USER2> Archive Team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > they'd made a series of thoughtful hires, including PHP creator Rasmus > Lerdorf

Uh.

<comment><USER17> The creator of a programming language that's used on a large percentage of the web. How dare they?</comment></comment>


Technology Isn't Killing the Physical Office - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/the-office-of-the-future-is-an-office-1a18ce4b60a2#.fpzi3gkxc <comment><USER2> "Greg- look, I've got a client who started her design firm in her garage, but then realized that she needed to be at a 'co-working site'. It's like renting a room within an office. It worked out GREAT for them and I think an article about how these things are the next iteration of the office, "Office 2017", I call it, would really make a great story! PLUS- these Office 2017 places have a -lot- of money, I'm smelling easy ad revenue- your sales droids will love that.

"Tell you what-- I'LL WRITE IT FOR YOU, then we can hit up the steak house. Sound good?"</comment>


Show HN: Java full-stack starter template for side projects - <AUTHOR> https://turbovar.com/turbovar/index.jsp <comment><USER2> nice work man! The website looks good, keep up the great work!!

I have a question; why did you explicitly use jsp? With all the respect I have the feeling that it is getting a bit old fashioned. I would make the codebase more flexible by introducing a front-end framework or web components. What is your opinion?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good questions. On the front-end I use jsp to enable dynamic page generation and have things like headers and footers included dynamically and also for some variables, like the placeholders for url, have their value dynamically set. The main reason I chose jsp for those use cases was because it works well and is simple to understand even if you have had zero contact with jsp before (maybe if you want to use it more heavily, it is not that simple). For other aspects of the front-end I rely on html, javascript and css.

Regarding the front-end framework, I decided to use only Bootstrap because of simplicity. I avoided (for now) to use something like Angular or React because in my understanding it would increase the complexity of the stack and users, in general, would need more time to understand it, what would cause the side projects/SaaS/MVP they were aiming to build take more time to be released.

Since the product is now available to the public, those decisions may change once I gain more understanding of what customers really want. Thanks for you comment and feel free to leave any additional question/feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your site looks nice!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Aussie Nikki joins Silicon Valley millionaire factory  - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/aussie-nikki-joins-silicon-valley-millionaire-factory-20111118-1nlud.html

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... "They're kind of like religious fanatics trying to get to their mecca – they all want to get to Silicon Valley," Horton said of Australian entrepreneurs. But he said it was often perilous to try to make the jump alone as investors will "just take you apart" if you're not across all of your plans and details, particularly the financials and how much you want to raise. ..."_

Lawyers in Australia must fear YC because they really do miss out on this market, hence the fear tactics displayed here.</comment>


The initiative to break up California may be on the ballot in November - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/us/california-closer-to-split-into-three-states-trnd/index.html <comment><USER2> I've been part of projects to split companies into two. They were painful. While I can see the logic behind the movement, I have to wonder if they've thought through the pain of splitting every state-level government agency into three parts.

<comment><USER3> Bitter medicine may taste bad, but it'll help cure what ails you. Splitting California would be a long-term improvement for the residents there even if it would lead to some short-term pain.</comment></comment>


The Only Marketing That Counts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rustymoyher.com/post/13774634528/the-only-marketing-that-counts

<comment><USER2> Making a great app is not enough - being "featured" is not a guarantee from making a great app AND it's not sustainable, as you'll soon enough drop out of that position. You need to get on at least one "Top" list for Apple (Top Free, Top Paid, etc there are lots of these lists for different categories). However, to get there and stay there you may need to use ALL of the techniques the author tried (ads, emails, tweets, etc...). They all work together, and should work something like a symphony.

</comment><comment><USER3> For anybody else interested in reading this already slim article, the tl;dr is: Make good software so that Apple features you.

Whoop-de-frigging-doo.

No by-tool-tried investigation of what /they/ might have had to do with getting you to the point where you are featured. Actually, every tool investigation dies after a very slim paragraph.

I actually now wonder whether there is an additional paragraph coming:

 _Hacker News_

Posted a link to my kind-of hamfisted report

on tracking my marketing attempts. Didn't put

too much effort into that after the Apple cash

train rolled in. All I got back was snark and

a couple of hits.</comment>


Need advice - <AUTHOR>

I have no idea if Hacker News is any good for this type of a post but I'll give it a shot.
I'm working with a travel group here in the US. Huge company with direct relationships with over 300,000 hotels. They're wanting to leverage those relationships into a handful of travel platforms. In a nutshell, I'm in charge of design, finding coders, managing the project, etc. I believe in their vision and they also have funding. At least enough funding to get us rolling but who knows after that.
Here comes the part where I need help. There's someone in charge of marketing who, in my opinion, has NO CLUE what they're doing. I just got a 30-slide PowerPoint with a "marketing strategy" filled with social media and marketing buzzwords. I know from experience that this person's strategy can't differentiate the product from competitors, especially when travel is so muddled as it is and since our competitors are going to be Orbitz, Kayak, Hotels.com, Expedia, etc. I don't want this company to waste their time and money building mediocre products, especially since I have a lot of time I'm putting in as well. How do I go about showing the CEO that this person's marketing strategy is going to lead us into an iceberg? How do I go about showing the CEO that he's about to sink a ton of money into the wrong marketing strategy? <comment><USER2> Do you have significant marketing experience?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, but I have enough experience trying to launch two startups to know the basics of what NOT TO DO.

<comment><USER2> That's insufficient. The only way to show why the guy is wrong is to show what the right thing to do is.

Sounds like you are about to throw yourself into a political fight that you are very likely to lose because you are going to step onto someone else's turf without the appropriate ammo.</comment></comment></comment>


What's new in Node v0.10? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.strongloop.com/whats-new-in-node-v0-10/ <comment><USER2> So a readable stream is an EventEmitter, but it's not recommended that you actually listen for 'data' events? (Instead you're supposed to call read()?) That seems ... counterintuitive.

Anyone know what you're supposed to do if you have code with multiple listeners for 'data' events?

<comment><USER3> If you add a listener for 'data', or call stream.resume() then it'll start flowing data as it receives it, just like v0.8 and before. The only caveat is that listening for 'end' will __not __automatically start the flow of data, so you do sometimes have to either call resume() or add a data listener.

In practice, it's rare that you care about the end of the stream, but not about the data coming through it, except in tests.

tl;dr Your existing programs will almost certainly Just Work.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. Is there any significant performance difference? (I'm wondering if it makes sense to roll my own "proxy" converting read()s to emit()s.)

<comment><USER3> No, it does not make sense to roll your own proxy turning read() calls into emits. You probably won't get it to go faster than it does now. Whether you use on('data') or read(), you get equivalent performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Look here for a detailed analysis of benchmarks. <http://blog.nodejs.org/2013/03/11/node-v0-10-0-stable/>

From that post, their focus is on v0.12 and then v1.0. Nice to see we're getting to that stage.

</comment><comment><USER5> After 9 months all we get is a new streams interface?

<comment><USER6> Given how all manner of languages, libraries and frameworks tend to massively sprawl over time, keeping the growth of core components down is a good idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> v0.10 comes after v0.8(0)? That's like launching Chrome v3 after Chrome v25.

<comment><USER8> 0.10 != 0.1, in the same way that 0.8 != 0.80

<comment><USER9> Could you explain that?, because if you're right I been wrong my whole life.

<comment><USER10> Version numbers are not _numbers_. How would you explain, for example, Chrome's version 24.0.1312.57?

Dots separate _logical_ numberings, like version, patch, bugfix, etc. So 3.0 goes after 2.0 And 2.0.2 after 2.0.1. _And 1.10 after 1.9_.

<comment><USER11> ´n.n.n.n´ where the dot does not represent decimal notation but a less significant variation (of the software) than the previous number. This is universally true for the first two numbers but not always for the rest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> huh so these strongloop guys are the new node maintainers?

<comment><USER3> No.

StrongLoop employs 2 node core committers, Ben Noordhuis and Bert Belder, who are also two of the most active libuv committers. (They have other folks that work there, of course, but those two also work on Node itself quite a lot.)

Joyent still is the custodian and IP owner of the Node.js project. They pay me to work on node, and also provide the project with marketing, legal, hosting, and other resources. Joyent also uses Node extensively in their technology stack, and builds tools to debug their own and their customers' production Node applications.

StrongLoop will be providing support to users of their Node Distro, which bundles v0.10 with a few battle-tested npm modules.

Joyent and StrongLoop are very different companies, and while they're not officially partners, that I'm aware of, they are certainly not competitors in any sense.

<comment><USER12> As I read it, Joyent relicenses the IP under MIT, so although they may be the IP "owner" they immediately give anyone a license to do pretty much whatever with the code.

Definitely appreciate that they pay you to work on it. Appreciate that there are new companies in the ecosystem too.

And finally someone who looks like they are going to support Node on Windows and Linux!

<comment><USER3> The node team has supported Windows since 0.6, and Linux forever.

StrongLoop Node is a bundled distro with modules etc that they're going to support as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> W00t!</comment>