An Open Letter to Tim Cook Regarding the App Store 70/30 Revenue Split - <AUTHOR> http://blog.anylistapp.com/2015/02/open-letter-to-tim-cook-regarding-app-store-revenue-split/ <comment><USER3> From a aspiring indie developer perspective, I've never worried about the 70/30 split.

I've been much more concerned with getting my apps visible to anyone. The app store is so flawed when it comes to discoverability (even as a user it is frustrating to find apps that solve a need) I would give up even more share if people could find my app to begin with.

<comment><USER4> Agreed: The terrible discovery is the worse problem, it leads to a market of hits, with no long tail.

Whereas if you open the play store on an android phone, it suggests apps your friends have, and many other 'discoverable' things. It leads to a better long tail, eg supports indies.

I know more indies making a living out of android, and i know _far_ more ios developers, being one myself.

<comment><USER5> +1, completely agree. Might as well throw complete itunes connect overhaul into this. It's an absolute nightmare working with itunes connect, managing users, working with beta and internal testers.. the whole process is completely disconnected and really demonstrates the launch of a rushed product.

<comment><USER6> > Might as well throw complete itunes connect overhaul into this.

Funny considering the current iTunes connect is a complete overhaul, which only came out recently with iOS 8.

The new iTunes Connect acts like someone's first attempt at an Angular app (which it is), with a complete disregard from doing things in a performant way.

<comment><USER7> > The new iTunes Connect acts like someone's first attempt at an Angular app

Huh, it sure is. Is that surprising to anyone else?

Also, while it may be Apple's first attempt as a company I'm sure they managed to find a few devs who had shipped an angular app to work on Connect.

<comment><USER8> Well, then they chose the wrong ones, or widely failed at defining something that works. Working with this new website (which about 30% of the time still uses old pages... Bug reports anyone?) is a huge chore.

I remember being locked out of an important project for an entire week because their buttons for adding people to projects was broken. One day, it started working again, no communication from Apple at all.

There's also this usability issue where you have to try to validate your new version of an app and only then being welcomed by an error. No pre-validation of the input fields, hello Apple?

There are myriads of small annoying issues like:

\- can't share 1 email with multiple teams in iTunesConnect and Developer portal. You have to have a unique email in iTunes Connect for each of your projects. This is just ridiculous, especially when you know that on the Developer portal this works fine. I have now tens of firstname.lastname@example.com accounts in iTunes connect, and managing passwords is simply... damn.. \- can't delete a version of an app when you have created it (but not yet uploaded a binary). WTF? I was trying to test the "beta" service, and was forced to create a new version of the app. Once created, you cannot remove it for any reason. I was stuck there with a version that I deemed was "beta", and couldn't create a new one, or remove this one. \- Seemingly random crypto export renewal. Sometimes, when issuing a new version of our app, the website will ask for the crypto documents, whereas they are in their database. Othertimes, they won't be asked. \- Once the crypto export documents have been provided, you cannot submit another one. This bit me once, because there was only _one_ "upload" button. So I sent the US Gov. crypto document, and then the page moved on, not letting me upload the French one. Afterwards, impossible to get back to this page, and Apple support kindly told me I was to drop the deployment to the French store if I wanted to continue using the App Store... The correct solution would have been to ZIP the entire set of documents, then upload them as 1 file.. which is not intuitive. Or the Apple team could have asked for the french document through their support interface, which they never did. I got out of this by uploading a dummy binary, then dropping the version entirely, and creating a new one. Bizarrely, the export documents were not asked for the next submission.

This website really sucks. I usually brag about how the iOS distribution system is superior to Android's in terms of security and separation of roles, but last month I submitted an app to the Android Play store and I was baffled by the web UI. Drag-and-drop the APK, AJAX-enhanced buttons, very quick, not fiddling with two accounts (developer and iTunes connect), overall ease of use.. Man, Apple seems to have been too busy shoveling the cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I kind of have the opposite opinion. It should start at 30% and go down with success.

Apple is providing a service (yea there's no alternatives on iOS but still)... for 30% they take care off all your payments from all countries, they take care of refunds, dealing with credit card companies, and for the most part dealing with customers in general.

They also provide the market, the installation system, the update/upgrade system. Having tried to write some of those myself and the servers to maintain them I can tell you I don't personally want to run them.

Compare to Steam. Steam is also 30% on a platform you can do it all yourself if you want. Sure they provide the most exposure but similarly they also provide most of the other services that make it worthwhile.

Assuming you could do that do you really want to do all that yourself? Think about it. If you did it yourself you'd need to run a server to put your software on. Keep it secure, updating it constantly with security patches. Make a relationship with a payment processor. Handle refunds yourself. Figure out an upgrade system. Figure out how to deal with failed installations. I'm sure others could name many more things you'd have to do.

30% doesn't seem unreasonable to me given it would take more more than 30% of my time (and therefore money) to do this myself. At least that's my perspective.

<comment><USER10> All the services they provide don't justify the cost (30% of sales!) in any way. The only reason Apple is able to charge a fee so high is because they are the monopoly provider of apps for the most popular (or the richest) mobile platform.

<comment><USER11> Admittedly, Apple probably has an excellent rate negotiated with the Credit Card Processors. But if you were to sell something for $0.99 yourself, it'd be hard to beat what Apple offers.

Taking Stripe as an example, you'd be charged 2.9% of 99¢ PLUS a fixed 30¢ per transaction. That's about 32.9% you lose to the payment processor.

<comment><USER10> I never claimed I could get such a rate myself, I'm just saying that if there was competition when it comes to app stores, the fee would likely be lower. I'm absolutely certain that big companies can get amazing rates for transactions, with no fixed fees. For instance, I can pay 1 penny (or whatever the minimum cost of an item would be, maybe 20 pence) with my credit card in Tesco or Sainsbury's, I'm pretty sure they're not loosing money by selling stuff to me.

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tesco lost money selling you a 20 pence item by credit card. So few people make purchases like that that it will be easy to absorb the losses rather than taking the PR hit that comes with rejecting someone's attempt to pay you.

Think of it this way: for every 20p purchase, how many 100 pound+ purchases are there? Can the one cover the other?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This letter - and the revenue numbers in it - are interesting from a strategy perspective. The conventional wisdom I hear is that Android owns the overall market for smartphones, but if you want to make money as an independent developer, you're better off developing for iOS because iPhone users are more likely to pay for things. There's all sorts of crap in the Android ecosystem, a lot of it is free, but the users are largely the sorts of people who will take what kind of freebies they can get and don't want to pay for a premium product. By contrast, Apple actively encourages their developers to pay attention to fit & polish.

Given this, I wonder if relaxing the 30% rev split might actually be in Apple's interests. In order to build that premium ecosystem, they need developers to be able to work full-time on apps. If they strangle that ecosystem, then the only people building iPhone apps will be folks with other day jobs to support them - which means either the quality bar will go down, or their will be many fewer apps in the app store vs. Google Play.

Then again, perhaps that's Apple's plan anyway: focus on the few things that many customers want, make sure the apps for those are really good, and it's okay if there's not an app for the rest.

<comment><USER14> Re: "owning the market", people forget the difference between market share and profit share. Profits are what keep your ecosystem alive and thriving. Raw usage numbers, by themselves, don't. (Sure, usage can lead to profits... so just measure profits!)

Yes, Android sells more devices. Apple has 93% of the profits in industry, Samsung has 9%, and everyone else is fighting for that tiny slice and losing money.

[http://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/09/apple-mobile- profits-q4-...](http://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/09/apple-mobile- profits-q4-2014/)

The more profitable ecosystem is where developers want to play. Apple doesn't need to change their royalty rates, everyone is clamoring to be in that arena.

<comment><USER15> I'm pretty sure this is referring to the operating profits on hardware sales, which would be a pretty silly factor in deciding what platform to write software for. Third party software devs make precisely none of that profit. Samsung also doesn't, afaik, make any of whatever Google's cut of Android software sales are, so even if it does include app store cuts that just turns it into an apples and oranges comparison.

This is not to say the conclusion is wrong, just that the data here is not relevant to it.

<comment><USER14> Agreed, I'm using total hardware profits by ecosystem as a proxy for willingness of consumers in those ecosystems to spend money. Actual revenue from each store isn't easy to come by from what I've seen (esp. since the various Android stores are fragmented).

But I think we already know the conclusion: the iOS store has more money spent in it than the Android one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That 30% isn't for nothing - it's for payment processing, reach, marketing, infrastructure, testing/approval (you may or may not like this, but users probably do like it), app delivery, etc. Like it or not, those things all are more valuable to smaller developers than bigger ones. Microsoft can do a lot of that stuff themselves, if they really want to - Joe the ordinary developer can't.

Apple is already being nice to small developers by giving them the same rates as big developers - in any other business, doing 100x the sales of the little guy would get you a better rate, not the same one.

<comment><USER17> > it's for payment processing, reach, marketing, infrastructure, > testing/approval,... app delivery, etc.

But if your app is free, then there is no charge for those services. How does it make sense that theit provision only costs Apple money if your app costs >= 1 cent?

<comment><USER18> Because Apple is willing to eat the cost for the benefit of having a free app?

Every free app in their store is one more reason for you to buy an iPhone.

Paid apps, while also adding to the ecosystem, do not offer the same value to Apple.

It's also just plainly logical. You can't charge people to give something away. You can charge money if you're helping them make it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've disclosed my App Store revenues before ([http://www.trevormckendrick.com/my-first-year-in-the-app- sto...](http://www.trevormckendrick.com/my-first-year-in-the-app-store/) and [http://www.trevormckendrick.com/My-2nd-Year-in-the-App- Store...](http://www.trevormckendrick.com/My-2nd-Year-in-the-App-Store/)).

Apple can absolutely afford to do this financially, but the 70/30 split is practically the only thing that hasn't changed in the App Store since it launched. So why don't they?

A few possibilities:

\- They have a similar split with music labels, so giving more to developers could hurt their music industry relationships

\- They have more interest in helping the big app companies like Supercell, simply because of the revenues and brands they create

\- They don't want to give additional incentives to creators of crappy apps who never make much money anyway

Whatever Apple's reasons, they haven't changed iTunes music revenue splits in over a decade. So I don't expect them to update developer splits anytime soon either.

<comment><USER20> Why would someone with a monopoly over the software on millions of devices ever reduce prices?

<comment><USER21> To gain more development support. More developers = more apps = more users = more revenue.

It makes sense.

<comment><USER22> There's certainly a tipping point though. Having the store flooded with more low quality apps doesn't help them, and they seem to be doing pretty well currently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is the opposite of what I was expecting to read. The developers with the lowest income receive the most benefit from Apple as they presumably do not have a large, existing marketing list to convert to sales and so rely on App Store discovery (what exists of it.) If anyone should pay different rates, it should be the more successful developers who convert to an expensive premium developer account subscription. This is the model used by Ebay, Etsy, Shopify, and a lot of other markets.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's a good thought but I think adding this kind of complexity , even with good intent, is exactly the sort of thing the 70/30 split was created to avoid.

There is something nice about just knowing, this is my split. I don't have to worry about it switching and my profit formulas being altered once I hit a certain sales threshold, My take is $.70x, with x being downloads. Period.

Beyond that, I'd have to ask what happens when we take this to its logical conclusion:

Say you start with an 85% split for the first 10,000 sales or something -- what happens if the split then eventually goes below 70/30, say 65/35 or 60/40 or worse, the more copies you sell? How do people react then.

I suppose the counter-argument is that that's how the tax system works -- and that's fair -- but I still don't see developers being happy to have to give up more of their take down the road, just because they have reached "success."

I mean, if you're going to go to tiers, then the next argument becomes about what defines one tier from the next.

Again, it introduces all kinds of complexities that having a straight 70/30 system avoids. And to me, that simplicity ultimately trumps the other arguments, as sympathetic to indie developers as I might be.

<comment><USER25> The point of having tapered rates is well established as being progressive and fair. Governments do this with income tax. The basic premise is that $1 means more to a person with an income of $10,000 per year, compared to a person with an income of $100,000, or a $1,000,000. It therefore follows that developers earning less money are not as able to pay as those earning higher incomes. A flat rate favours bigger developers.

If Apple wants to promote diversity, then they should have a progressive system, and lower the barrier to smaller developers.

This actually may prove to increase Apple revenues ultimately by helping smaller developers stay in the game over the long term because their business would not have been otherwise viable.

Adding income tiers is not that more complex.

<comment><USER26> yeah but apple isn't a charity or government. they aren't in the industry of solving income inequality. imagine if you went to a restaurant and they checked your income and set the price of your meal based on that. it doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER27> Completely OT, but, if you file a Schedule C and are deducting 50% of the cost as a business expense, then effectively the meal actually costs less the higher your tax rate. In CA and at the highest marginal rates the state+federal deduction is worth around 20% the cost of the meal!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "I think it would be a big win for independent developers targeting Apple platforms, and by extension a big win for Apple, if the App Store revenue split used a tiered rate."

It's interesting to see someone give Apple advice on how to make a "big win" financially. They're literally the biggest winners financially of any company in the world right now.

<comment><USER29> Well, maybe Apple became that successful by also listening to their customers.

<comment><USER30> Apple's history has a lot of successes stemming from them ignoring stated preferences from customers. Ditching the floppy, a phone without a hardware keyboard, refusing to build netbooks, etc.

As the probably apocryphal Henry Ford quote goes, "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse".

<comment><USER29> I know those stories, and yet they switched from motorola to intel back in the days, they created a larger screen iphone which proved to be a best seller, and they've recently announced that ios 9 would be a "hardening" release with no major new breakthrough features.

I think we shouldn't confuse marketing studies ( which they may not like), with customer feedback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting perspective, however bargaining with Apple like a peasant to his king about the tax regime seems like such a powerless way to approach the problem.

Apple's Appstore is flawed in many ways. All Appstores leave something to be desired.

I'll take all the long breath out of my philosophy[1], but it boils down to an inherit weakness in the business model of pushing downloads for cash flow.

Many of the most successful apps have completely decoupled their revenue from downloads, or the 70/30 split. The "Big Players" like King.com and the rest sell in game items that cost $100! Do you think they care about the 70/30 split?

Then you have other utility apps. Like "Fixify" for $1 that let's me see the title of my Spotify Music on my Pebble. Seems like Spotify should just do it, but they don't. This dude got my dollar. That app had to be like 200 lines of Java, most of which was probably boilerplate.

If you are concerned about 70% or 80%, or 85%, you are thinking _too small_. If Tim had balls he could say "fine, here is 95%" and then somehow prove it didn't change the economics of the Appstore.

TLDR - If you are worried about the split, you are "gripping the bat wrong."

[1] [http://www.connersc.com/blog/lets-face-it-folks-ios-is- not-a...](http://www.connersc.com/blog/lets-face-it-folks-ios-is-not-a- strategy/)

<comment><USER32> > it boils down to an inherit weakness in the business model of pushing > downloads for cash flow. Many of the most successful apps have completely > decoupled their revenue from downloads, or the 70/30 split. The "Big > Players" like King.com and the rest sell in game items that cost $100! Do > you think they care about the 70/30 split?

Apple charges a 70/30 split on in-app purchases as well.

<comment><USER33> The company I work for has a mobile payment platform which sells a lot of adult content. Why people pay £3 for a 30 second video I have no idea, but of that £3 the merchant only gets £1.50 (if they are lucky) after the operator has taken their cut.

The thing is, it costs them practically nothing to sell that content, so even though they only get 50% it's still a win for them - that £1.50 is pure profit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> If Apple would do this, they'd have even more incentive to promote the highest grossing apps in their app store.

Look at the 30% fee as a marketing cost. Surely you want the owner of your only marketing channel to be well compensated?

<comment><USER35> Is Apple necessarily the only marketing channel? Ie is there no way to deep link into the app store? I've seen links to iTunes app pages online - <USER2> while last I heard you can't download to your device from that page, will it not open in the app store if you open it on an iOS device? Also on Android Facebook for instance advertise apps a lot with a link to the store, is that not possible on iOS? Or do you have to use an Apple ad network on iOS for all advertising?

Sorry for the confused reply, I'm just curious whether they've actually taken steps to force themselves as your only marketing channel or why that would be the case.

<comment><USER36> Anyone can share an app link. So, you can tweet a link, you can post a link on your own web site (and even use an appropriate app store graphic from Apple) or any way you want to share the link. Plus, you get a set of promo codes you can share to give to reviewers. So, there's many ways one can advertise an app.

Now, Apple has started a deal with Pinterest as well so people can pin apps so that's another avenue.

Relying on Apple promotion generally means that you'll end up in the long tail. Occasionally, apps break out (then they often get Apple promotion after this happens) like Flappy Bird, but that's uncommon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Developers won't actually absorb the full discount. A decrease in the fee will force a drop in prices (if that's possible) as developers attempt to find new customers with their newfound margin. If you have a more price-elastic customer base, those customers will reap most of the value of the shift as many will come to enjoy their lower prices.

Secondly, wouldn't this create the perverse incentive for developers of multiple apps to release apps under multiple accounts--some might call them shell accounts--in order to minimize their app taxes?

<comment><USER38> Mind explaining your perspective on why a decrease in this fee will result in a 1-to-1 drop in prices?

As far as point two, given that Apple is the 'benevolent dictator' of this app store, releasing apps under multiple accounts is a risky venture since developers and companies run the risk of getting banned completely. The overheard of wasting the time to actually do that also has to be small enough to make the potential gain worth while. Apps also seem to benefit from network effects, so it could hurt developers to spread their popularity for the same app across different apps in a discreet enough way that Apple wouldn't notice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I understand where he's coming from, but in almost any analagous case I can think of, the tiers go the opposite way -- you pay less percentage on a $million in revenues than you do on $1000.

When you have only $1000 in revenues, you're actually paying very little for what Apple is providing. When you have a million, you're paying an awful lot, and are probably wondering if you can find a way to keep more of it.

</comment><comment><USER40> To this day I still have not understood why 70/30 became such a rock.

Android, Amazon and Windows could play with this number to attract more developers. Samsung started with a ramp up but it happened in 6 months or so 0%, 10%, 20% then 30% at the launch of their store. I thought for sure when Microsoft came in later they would also go 25% or even 20%. Everyone followed right behind Apple in line rather than challenged that number through competition. Almost seems like price fixing.

I think the tiered system would be a great way to help but I worry Apple may not care as much about indie titles or smaller apps since they already gain less total. It could be an awesome gift from Apple to developers though.

In games IP royalties are usually 17%, with 30% on that and maybe 5% is using Unreal or other sales based cost. Over 50% cut off the top. At that level the 30% starts to look massive. If you have a publisher then another 20-30%. What's the point at that level with that budget. You can say Apple primarily squeezed the publishers out which is good but the rent is too damn high.

</comment><comment><USER41> I see a lot of idealism in this post. Apple is for profit company that is very aggressive in pursuing it. While I agree with poster rationale and I think tiered pricing would be other way around, lower as you sell more.

Anyhow, I don't think it's going to happen, it looks to me that as far as Apple is concerned, he have you/us where it wants and don't want to change anything.

</comment><comment><USER42> Proposal made without any thought as to how scummy app developers are going to game the system.

First thing that happens is opening a new development account per app in an attempt to squeak under the $100k as much as possible.

</comment><comment><USER43> This would basically turn Apple from a payment processor (relatively straightforward) into a global tax collector (extremely complex).

Think about how you would handle corporate entities. Do you handle pass- through entities like LLCs differently than S-Corps?

Now imagine designing a split structure that would make sense for a developer in Vietnam / Mexico / Spain. It would have to be different for each country. $5K for Vietnam? $20K for Mexico? $50K for Spain? Good luck.

Oh, what if you have multiple people writing one app? With a 60/40 split between them?

Okay, let's say you ignore all the previous points. Just imagine the kind of infrastructure you'd have to build out to verify identity globally, to ensure that people aren't using frontmen -- having their friend register an account and passing the money through their account.

No thanks.

<comment><USER44> I don't think you've thought this through very well.

Apple already sets pricing tiers per country, based on exchange rates and other factors. Just apply the same adjustment to the $100k figure.

There is no need to be concerned with the entity type. The first $100k per year for all developers accounts gets charged 0%, everything thereafter gets charged the standard rate. If you're building an app with a partner, oh well. The vast majority of people this would help are individual devs.

And registering other accounts is pointless; the app belongs to one dev account and that's the account that accrues revenue. There's no way to share it, other than by transferring the app to someone else's account. A simple fix for that is to require 30% after X numbers of transfers for the same app, or just require the 30% cut if you do a transfer. Again, the target for this is individual indie developers working on their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As an independant iOS dev, that post is so right it shouldn't even be an issue.

Not only would it let more devs work full time on their project, but it will also make new niche markets interesting.

</comment><comment><USER45> Will I get downvoted if I propose a meta conversation on the horribly weasly rhetorical device of the "open letter"? I suppose etymologically, this used to actually mean something, but I don't remember anymore. Now all it signals to me is that someone wrote a blog post, prefixed it with "Dear <High Clout Person Of Interest>" to essentially work up some minor amounts of linkbait. Double reader rage points if it's signed "Love, <Author>"

</comment><comment><USER46> People would game the shit out of a system like this.

Oh, our 'freemium' game just hit the 10% threshold. Better re-release it under a new dev account as shitquest-2 and rake in the moolah!

<comment><USER47> It probably wouldn't be too hard for Apple to check this though. Just make sure the account isn't under the name or address of someone who already has a developer account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Would be nice, but I can't see any upside for Apple aside from good PR and generosity.

<comment><USER49> More independent developers more excited about their platform results in increased app quality and quantity, as well as increased platform migration and retention resulting from a stronger ecosystem. All of which results in increased sales of both apps and hardware which means increased profit.

Plus the good PR and generosity you mentioned.

I actually think it's harder to find the downside to the proposal than it is to find upside. This is a good letter and a good suggestion.

<comment><USER50> You're acting like they don't already have that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Hey guys, Fake Tim Cook here. Just thought I'd chime in.

Here at Apple we pride ourselves on our developer friendly ecosystem. Apple has led the way in creating more value for developers. Plus, we have a monopoly on the developing for iOS, so it looks like you pretty much have to do whatever we say. Between you and me, we could change the split to 50/50 and it wouldn't really hurt us any.

It may not seem like a lot of money is at stake to you guys, but we didn't build a collosal mountain of cash by participating in race-to-the-bottom economics. Our pricing scheme was built to get developers to our platform. It was probably too generous, but we can't go back now, until we finish going thermonuclear on android.

Pretty soon we will have enough money to buy Earth. The new earth will be the best earth yet, redesigned from the literal ground up. Till then, we have to deal with pesky problems like robot, er android, or whatever. Anyways, keep cranking out those golden apps.

My benevolent smile be upon you,

Fake Time Cook

</comment><comment><USER52> If you think about it, Apple is like government. They "tax" you. An independent app developer is basically running a startup as the developer has to cover marketing, production development, customer support, finance reporting, and even human resource management (hey he/she has to sleep and get away from the computer!). Very curious: what kind of benefits do small app developers get from Apple?

The difference is you don't really "elect" how Apple decide what to do, unless you start a mass campaign and challenge Apple's authority. AWS and Google are always cutting their cloud price to attract customer. But as app developer you probably should let Apple know exactly what works and what doesn't work for you. I read all the comments below like how App Store's discovery sucks (+1). I think Apple is obligated to improve how apps are discovered, used, and marketed.

</comment><comment><USER53> People forget that Apple pay for hosting and downloads.

The cost of hosting the 0% rate apps (99.3% of all apps[1]) would not be a small cost at all.

[1]: [http://metakite.com/blog/2015/01/the-shape-of-the-app- store/](http://metakite.com/blog/2015/01/the-shape-of-the-app-store/)

<comment><USER54> I don't forget that they pay for it, I just think it's so tiny as to not matter in this discussion.

Downloads are such an infinitesimally small cost, relatively speaking. I don't have comparable download numbers to the Apple store, but I do help maintain software that has 3+ million downloads a year (and it's a quite large download, too, compared to mobile apps, at 15MB). The cost of hosting those downloads and the bandwidth for them wouldn't even really be a blip on our radar in terms of costs of running our business and projects. Bandwidth is _cheap_ these days. Hardware is _cheap_ these days. And, it takes almost no hardware to serve file downloads. We've had people offer to provide mirrors for us for free, but we don't take them up on it (though we can't stop people, either, being Open Source) because we'd rather have the data about downloads than the tiny savings in bandwidth and hardware.

What's a few hundred terabytes a year of transfer and storage for apps to an organization like Apple, that also serves out millions of HD movies? It is closer to "nothing" than it is to "something".

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Honestly, Apple reached the point a long time ago where they are trying to set the bar higher to make an app, not lower. They even flat out said, "no more fart apps". So I think they consider themselves to be at the app saturation point. More apps will not help them, only higher quality apps will. Helping indie developers generally won't encourage high quality apps.

The current situation is indie developers make apps, most completely disappear, and very few make it to the top of the charts. The rest of the apps on the charts are there because a big company dropped 70k ad spend to put it there or because it was cross promoted from other apps or already had a high place. Encouraging small time development is encouraging a part of the app store hardly any users see anyway.

</comment><comment><USER56> Discoverability and the closed nature of the ecosystem asre problems. If I create a web version of an app I own the relationship with my customers, not Apple. I can charge, monetize in a dozen different ways and even manage enterprise relationships as I see fit. This is what we are doing witheducational software. I got sick and tired of having Apple as gatekeepers.

Bug fixes are a nightmare because you are on their schedule, not yours. You can't deploy fixes or new features overnight or over a weekend. Your customers suffer because Apple is in the middle wanting to micro manage it all.

So we've shifted our strategy to web based apps done wih Python, jQuery, etc. and, you know, it feels good.

The 30% isn't the issue, Apple is the issue.

</comment><comment><USER57> It's a good idea. It would give small developers a chance to get on their feet financially. But the author assumes most of the revenues come from big-selling apps. I don't think we actually know how long a tail the app sales distribution has or what effect it would have on Apple's revenues.

And, unfortunately, it wouldn't have any effect on, e.g., Amazon being unable to sell books on Apple products because Amazon's margins are too low to allow them to eat the 30% and jacking up their prices 43% to cover the Apple tax would make them uncompetitive with Apple's book store. Apple's plan, maybe, but damned inconvenient for users.

</comment><comment><USER58> I remember the days when app revenue splits were 30/70 (driven by mobile carriers) so I find it hard to complain about Apple's revenue split policy. While onerous, it at least makes it possible to be profitable.

</comment><comment><USER59> "Hopefully you agree that a thriving ecosystem of independent developers is an important competitive advantage for Apple."

If Apple cared about a thriving ecosystem of independent developers, they would make it easy for developers on non-Apple hardware to build and test iOS apps. For the Windows/Linux-based developer who is just interested in kicking the tires on iOS development, the walled Apple ecosystem is very unfriendly to experimentation. I know I focused early on Android development for mobile apps because of the lower barrier to entry.

</comment><comment><USER60> I think discoverability is a much bigger problem with the App Store than the 70/30 revenue split. Whilst the revenue split is too high, I would much rather see improvements in the discoverability of apps created by indie developers/ entrepreneurs than the constant flooding of apps from big developer studios. Of course, the app needs to be good enough that when it is discovered, people actually want to use. Perhaps a vetting/ recommendation system should be implemented to highlight apps that would not have been found before.

</comment><comment><USER61> All the comments here saying the services Apple provides are worth the 30% are missing the point. The point isn't that it's unfair or that they aren't providing value, it's that the ecosystem would be better off if it was easier for indies to make money.

Indie devs are good for Apple, and many of them are quitting because it's not financially viable. They aren't going to Android, they are getting 9-5's

Sure improving discovery would also help, this isn't the only thing that can be changed. It is just one thing that could be changed.

<comment><USER50> The 30% cut is not what is stopping them from making money. It's the sad fact that their apps are not that popular.

<comment><USER61> I beg to differ. Unread is a good example. Making 42k on 1 app in a year is pretty popular. 42k isn't really enough though. Maybe 60k (which is what it would be without the 30%) isn't enough either, but it's much closer.

[http://blog.jaredsinclair.com/post/93118460565/a-candid- look...](http://blog.jaredsinclair.com/post/93118460565/a-candid-look-at- unreads-first-year)

Personally I'll pass 100k paid out to apple this year. That is the difference between me making slightly below market rates for the last few years to being able to hire another developer or designer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I don't really have any dog in this fight, but I found this comment completely bizarre:

> _At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a > day job._

For real? $70K income is pretty darn good pay and more than enough to support a family even if nobody else is working outside the home. In the US the median _household_ income is only $53K.

I can't decide if this misstep weakens the author's actual argument or not, but either way it simply drips with elitism and privilege and probably serves to undermine the presentation.

<comment><USER50> Whether that $70k is enough to support a family largely depends on where you live. Midwest? Yeah, it's great. San Francisco or NYC? Not really.

Further, given that we're software developers, the median income for everyone in the nation is completely irrelevant. It only matters what the median income for software developers is.

<comment><USER62> I disagree. It only matters what you're willing to be happy with, and what is "enough". The fact that literally millions of families live on way less than that amount is, at least, a proof-of-concept of the sufficiency of the money.

As for the actual number: San Francisco and New York may be expensive, but median household income is still only in the 60-80K range [0][1], and with fully half the population living on less than the median, I'm going to stand by my claim that $70K is possible to support a family on, even before considering the earning potential of the spouse who wants more money coming in.

[0] [http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san- francisco...](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-francisco/) [1] [http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new- york/](http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Devs probably wouldn't find the split so bad if the general fee charged for apps was higher. It must be pretty hard to make a living on 99 cent apps unless you're wildly successful.

</comment><comment><USER64> This same argument could be made for supermarkets. If Costco or Tesco wants a healthy ecosystem of groceries, they should sell my newly-launched coffee brand at cost (i.e. I keep 100% of the revenue) whilst selling established brands at a mark-up over wholesale cost.

However, in reality, the reverse is the case. Supermarkets must stock major products (e.g. Coke) and, if you have a less popular product with many substitutes, _you_ will _pay_ the supermarket for shelf space, just to get your brand known.

</comment><comment><USER65> This reasoning seems weak

"At $100K in net revenues per year, you may be a successful independent developer. At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a day job.

Therefore,..."

<comment><USER52> Maybe. Depends where one lives. In silicon valley a developer making $70K probably should look for a day job. In some awesome midwest $70K and a working spouse is very good.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But keep in mind that we're talking about net revenue here, not net profit. That $70K is after Apple's cut, then you need to deduct all of your expenses, like marketing and hosting, on top of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> "I think it's safe to say that most independent developers are generating annual revenue in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of dollars range."

Most?!

</comment><comment><USER67> "Looking at the numbers reported by independent developers, I think it's safe to say that Apple's 30% cut of App Store revenues can have a big impact on their success or failure."

But what if, Apple hugely improve App Store's app discoverability, searching, tagging and sharing? Therefore opening up a bigger potential market? ( And hence making more money )

</comment><comment><USER68> The short of it is: Apple wants their record breaking profits and they get those profits by telling you little guys "to hell with you". People keep buying Apple, people keep developing for Apple. They're massively profitable. Tell me what they're doing wrong and why they should cut you a break?

</comment><comment><USER69> A key point that many developers miss is that IF you are marketing your own apps, the split is not 70/30, but 77/23.

In explanation, you join the iTunes affiliate program, which gives you a 7% cut on sales in the app store. I really don't understand why this isn't more widely known.

<comment><USER54> If I could sell it directly from my website the cut would be 100/0\. I hate the indentured servitude imposed by the Apple App Store, and have opted out of mobile development thus far because of it.

It's like shooting off my nose to spite my face, I guess, given the growth of the mobile market, but I truly hate the shape of our industry these days, when it comes to how indie developers are able to connect to their users...yes, it's better than it's ever been, but not because of Apple. It's better because of the open web, and Apple and Google are using their near-monopoly powers to impose the old gatekeeper model long past when it should be relevant.

<comment><USER69> Not likely... I actually do sell direct on my site, and even there the cut for the ecommerce provider (fastspring) is 8.9%. Also, I have to manage the distribution chain myself, which is a surprising amount of overhead.

<comment><USER54> I sell software for servers directly on my site, as well. I do pay merchant service fees (which I'm also somewhat grumpy about how high they are), but the total amount of "fees" I pay is remarkably lower than 30%. If I factor in colocation costs, server costs, etc. I end up with ~11% total. (But, we're also supporting Open Source projects with a million+ users, so we have a lot higher infrastructure costs than we would if we only had to serve our few thousand paying customers.)

Even if I add advertising costs (because some people allege the app stores provide a customer base), it's still less than 20%. But, I could distribute dozens of times the amount of software I'm selling with the same hardware and colo (if the market wanted to buy dozens of times the amount of our software currently sold).

So, it's true that there are costs no matter how you sell your software to customers. And, I might be willing to pay more for things that would make my customers lives easier. But, 30% is...it's just outrageous, to me. Apple and Google are among the richest companies in the world. Their margins on running these stores is obscene.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> You also need to take into account that most of the western countries have 20% or more in VAT taxes. So the split is more like 90/10\. And they have to pay the credit card companies and for the bandwidth. I don't think Apple makes any money from the app store ...

<comment><USER71> Tax comes off before Apple take their 30%. So on a £10 spend, the government get £2, Apple get £2.40 and the developer gets £5.60.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Maybe Apple views the revenue split as a desirable barrier to entry for the sake of quality control?

<comment><USER3> The barrier to entry is the annual $100 developer fee, not the percentage of sales. I honestly wouldn't mind this fee being much much higher if the eliminated a lot of the crummy apps from the store.

<comment><USER73> Yeah, that and the $1500 computer to write the software.

<comment><USER74> $499 Mac Mini is good enough for writing apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> > I think it's safe to say that most independent developers are generating > annual revenue in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands of > dollars range.

I don't believe this is the case at all. From the linked study, most are making substantially less than that.

</comment><comment><USER76> Apple doesn't take 30% when apps are bought using iTunes gift cards that are sometimes discounted 20% by retailers. If retailers split the last 10% with Apple, that's only 5%. Developers can get a piece of that 30% by selling gift cards.

</comment><comment><USER77> This would be a great win for the top developers, a little extra rope for the borderline-sustainable developers, and nothing for everybody else. I'd rather they do something to lift the average.

</comment><comment><USER78> The proposal is flawed from a financial perspective to Apple.

Credit card fees are higher as a percentage of the price, the lower the price. Apple pays close to 30% to credit card companies for a one dollar transaction, whereas a hundred dollar transaction costs just a few percentage points. (I think this is due to a fixed per-transaction fee added to a percentage-based fee.) This is why retailers often place transaction minimums for credit-card purchases.

It's to Apple's benefit to consolidate multiple app and music purchases into one transaction to reduce the total percentage paid out. They do this by offering iTunes gift cards for sale at stores and by consolidating multiple purchases from the same day or two into one transaction.

<comment><USER79> Apple does not pay 30% on dollar transactions - they don't pay stripe-like processing fees. They are a high-volume seller with a great deal of negotiating leverage and financial savvy, they've been selling $1 digital goods since 2003. They probably pay some sort of per-transaction fee and percentage fees but it wouldn't add up to 30%. Take a look at the range of fees here -

[http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/credit-card-processing- fees/](http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/credit-card-processing-fees/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> 30% is practically standard for zero-marginal-cost, digital goods.

</comment><comment><USER81> Worrying about the 70/30 share is premature optimization—first build an app and get downloads on a large scale without buying installs, good luck man.

</comment><comment><USER82> yeh, this system is so dysfunctional . . that app devs are clamoring to make more apps than ever before.

no incentive to change a thing, and that's the straight dope.

</comment><comment><USER83> Will I be labelled a troll if I say after reading this, the first thing come to my mind is to fix the US income tax system instead of Apple's?

</comment><comment><USER84> When you are the king you get to decide. It is still a way better split then say ads on YouTube videos. I just don't see them changing this.

</comment><comment><USER85> So what happens if you've sold the first $100k, can you just re-release the app on a new account to stay on the highest paying tier?

<comment><USER86> Sure, but you lose your position in the rankings, all of your ratings, everything. You also wouldn't be able to update the original any more. I think you would lose a hell of a lot more in revenue that way than a 10% bump in profit split.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I'm afraid that loopholes are bound to be found this way (my first thought while reading this) - possibly I'm wrong...

</comment><comment><USER88> LoL! I'm sure one of the most successful companies of the last century needs your advice. Oh yeah... the company that has 90%+ of mobile profits needs _you_ telling Tim Cook how to run Apple.

<comment><USER89> I actually image that's how apple thinks

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I'm afraid this post just comes off as hugely naive. They are a corporation, they will milk you and everyone else for as much as they can get in every way possible.

</comment><comment><USER91> apple has a real cost in maintaining the review team, which to me is more of a burden than help, we have beta testers, they are far more responsive.

</comment><comment><USER92> completely agree, they should follow a tax bracket model.

</comment><comment><USER50> If anything is done to improve the App Store, it should be on the fronts of discovery, as others have pointed out, and being able to connect with customers. I know several longtime developers who'd love to distribute their software on the Mac App Store, but they wouldn't be able to do stuff like offer discounts to their existing customers for upgrades to the new version.

</comment><comment><USER50> Seems someone doesn't recall the bad old days of cell phone software, where there was still a 70/30 split; only YOU got the 30.

</comment><comment><USER93> Economically, this makes absolutely zero sense.

<comment><USER94> Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate?

<comment><USER95> The first issues I see are:

1) Apple is the most profitable company in the world, deals like this are why. It wouldn't behoove them to take less money than what is available on the table.

2) It would leverage Apple to promote only high grossing, high selling apps. This would change the way developers market and sell their apps. And provide disincentive to work on it more after it reached a threshold (maybe).

<comment><USER96> In answer to your points you can argue them to mean the opposite too:

1) No skin really off Apple's nose then is there, minimal change on bottom line and a win for small devs, their ecosystem and they look like a cool company who listens.

2) They only do this now anyway, that's why the App store is so shit and has had so few new features (especially around discoverability) since its inception. No incentive to push smaller indy devs apps (and also because Apple wants to maintain a feel of high quality as opposed to long tail).

It's not a terrible idea, no reason for Apple not to play nice really as it barely affects them.

<comment><USER95> You might be correct, it can be seen from both sides.

> No skin really off Apple's nose then is there

Ive never known Apple not to care about every penny it can make and keep, I just dont see them giving up on this, but rather push the devs to make software that is better and sells better so the 70% they earn can mean more to everyone's bottom line. Maybe... but I that's not how Ive ever seen Apple operate. The fact that they make developers pay $99/per just to develop apps is indication they dont care about this.

> no reason for Apple not to play nice

They never play nice, they are cutthroat, just like Amazon. It's how they manage to stay on top. They realized that not only are customers a profit center but also content producers they can make money on both ends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Free market triumphs again ;) It seems obvious that the only way to prevent Apple lining its pockets with cash earned by other developers' hard work (not to say that they don't deserve some on their own - they certainly do) would be to: regulate the app stores!

Neo-libertarian downvotes away!</comment>


Show HN: Winston, your personal web concierge - <AUTHOR> http://hellowinston.co/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I'm one of the co-founders of Winston. Tell me what you think and ask me anything!</comment>


BundleWrap. Decentralized configuration management system - <AUTHOR> http://bundlewrap.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> I found about BW from Python Weekly and want to know if anybody here is using it and how it compares to Fabric.</comment>


ESLint: A Next-Generation JavaScript Linter - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/09/eslint-the-next-generation-javascript-linter/ <comment><USER2> ESLint combined with Babel for syntax highlighting has made my life so much nicer.

[https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/lint-like- it-s-2015-6987d44c...](https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/lint-like- it-s-2015-6987d44c5b48)

</comment><comment><USER3> Once you are over the initial hurdle of creating a config file, which is sort of like picking words you like while browsing a dictionary, ESLint is a great replacement for the JSHint and JSCS combination - much more compact and less finicky.

Here's a simple .eslintrc that hits pretty much all the high points and syntax conventions that people fight over, while leaving the things that most people agree on as the standard defaults:

[https://www.exratione.com/2015/07/eslint-as-a-replacement- fo...](https://www.exratione.com/2015/07/eslint-as-a-replacement-for-jshint- and-jscs/)

</comment><comment><USER4> ESLint is pretty awesome - the project has a great team and always adding new functionality (cache and then parallel linting sound great)!

Although it isn't unique for all the features listed, as JSCS has the same things: an autoconfigure feature, built-in (as well as user created) presets/configs, multiple formatters, custom plugins/rules, custom parsers (esprima/espree/babel), autofixing of almost all rules. Hopefully both projects can benefit or integrate better together more in the future? (I contribute to both!)

I think autofixing for all rules (maybe with [https://github.com/cst/cst](https://github.com/cst/cst)) would be a nice goal for the future when thinking about the next-generation of linters. Making it easier to update configs when new rules/options are added would be nice as well.

</comment><comment><USER5> ESLint is a very solid tool. As others have noted, you do need to find a good config, but the airbnb JS style guide comes with a very, very good one: [https://github.com/airbnb/javascript](https://github.com/airbnb/javascript)

</comment><comment><USER6> Been using eslint for a while now, it truly is great. Using it with the airbnb javascript conf for react development often catches stupid style mistakes and helps my team keep in the same style.

</comment><comment><USER7> ESLint is nice but it's a pain to setup. A lot of people are beginning to use standard linters built on top of it like `semistandard` [0] .

[0] [https://github.com/Flet/semistandard](https://github.com/Flet/semistandard)

</comment><comment><USER8> Recommended! My team uses eslint with the "Standard" style, no more arguments about how a for-loop should be written. [http://standardjs.com/](http://standardjs.com/)

<comment><USER5> Might be worth noting that despite the name, feross/standard uses a very controversial and non-standard style. Notably, it enforces no semicolons.

There's nothing _wrong_ with that as a style, but it's certainly not any sort of standard.

Edit: The airbnb style guide I linked in my other comment is probably a lot closer to what most people would think of as a "standard" config. Not better _per se_ , just more common.

<comment><USER8> Yes, it's in quotes and capitalized for a reason. I did not pick the name.

About the style itself, it very closely matches what we were doing anyway, before it came along. Semicolons are dumb.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We switched Cylon.js ([https://github.com/hybridgroup/cylon/](https://github.com/hybridgroup/cylon/)) to use ESLint a few months back. Great tool!

</comment><comment><USER10> speaking of config, keep in mind that eslint comes with easy configurator to get going: `eslint --init`</comment>


How are you managing stress? - <AUTHOR> Obviously some of us have more stressful jobs than others normally, what methods have you found that have helped you manage that stress?
Now that COVID-19 is a thing, how are you managing that stress?
I'm so incredibly stressed.
We share desks with another shift at work and have 4-5 feet between desks in an open office, I net about $465 a week (would be 510ish but repaying 401k loan), my 67 year old mother with immune and a myriad of other health issues lives with me, I'm supposed to be getting married in 66 days and my fiance is currently in Missouri living at her parents while finishing a teaching year while I am in Indiana and we don't even know if the courthouse here will be open when we go to get the marriage license next month now. As of writing this I'm 7 months, 27 days, 8 hours, 5 minutes sober and alcohol is my traditional stress coping mechanism which I largely replaced with strength sports but the gyms are closed by order of local government...
Will I get the virus from work, will I have a job tomorrow working in international freight, will I have one in a month, will my food prep feed my mother and I long enough if we get confined to home as groceries have been void of staples since Friday evening, will I kill my immune compromised mother by bringing the virus home from work.
HN, what has helped you deal with stress? <comment><USER2> Think about the long term. Everyone will die. Even the sun. Don't fret over it. Take general precautions, but don't live in constant fear because that is like dying even before your actual death.

Leave some of it to chance. You can't do/control everything. Become a bit humble. Bow before nature, for what it gave in so much abundance, it can take away much as quickly.

Think of millions of under privileged who die more from more common ailments everyday. I don't think they would be least worried about this new virus, because they fight for life everyday and have done so since they were born.

Thank your luck, for you were born at a better place in better times, and try to enjoy each moment as it comes and passes.

<comment><USER3> > _Thank your luck, for you were born at a better place in better times_

I spend a good amount of time thinking about how fortunate I am and how grateful and thankful I am to have the job and resources that I do. I find that it helps with stress to experience and express that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know if it will help others, but a few viewpoints that have (perhaps strangely) helped me:

1\. Strictly limiting my social media consumption. Lots of people are stress posting as their own coping mechanism and if you consume it all day it inevitably takes an emotional toll.

2\. This is a once-in-a-generation event. It's ok if things get cancelled or pushed back. It's nobody's fault. Everyone will understand and do the best they can.

3\. You aren't in control of the national/global situation. Despite all the armchair epidemiologists on this site, the reality is the vast majority of us are simply riding it out. Embracing a lack of agency can be freeing (for me, at least).

4\. Aside from the disease itself, I don't think there's a realistic scenario where livelihood itself is in danger. Supply chains for staple items are in fine shape (shortages are a result of short-term panic buying.) Lots of people are going to get laid off, but unemployment exists and even the GOP seem eager to provide enough aid to pull people through.

5\. Everything is going to change, and that's ok. It's mostly scary because we don't know what the new normal will look like. But whatever that is, normality _will_ return, and though it isn't a universal law, humanity tends to do a pretty good job of righting itself after adversity. If anything, our periods of societal decline tend to come from too much stability and rot from within, rather than external hardship.

</comment><comment><USER5> Also consider staying away from the covid news wave. Helps keeping you sane. It's not helpful to know everything. Just wash your hands, try to stay home and and keep distance from people.

</comment><comment><USER6> Consider delaying the wedding, but you must talk about this carefully with your S.O. The wedding party is definitively canceled, but I guess you will still be able to get married without guests.

Can you buy a running mill or something? Can you rent part of the equipment from the gym? They are not going to use it anyway and they may need a small amount of money.

IIRC there have not been food shortages for now. Keep some food in case there is a small shortage or panic.

<comment><AUTHOR> As far as buying/renting stuff, I live in an apartment and my apartment even closed their gym and offices because of the virus.

For food shortages, there's definitely food issues here. Here are some pictures of the shelves Friday night [https://imgur.com/gallery/gczEiFt](https://imgur.com/gallery/gczEiFt), I've been going 1-2x a day since and it's just worse each time I go. Groceries all have restricted hours now too. Opening around 6-8am and closing at 10-11:30pm where some were previously 24/7.

Monday on the way to work at 7am (+/\- 10 minutes) I drove by 4 stores and all of the parking lots were packed already. Monday evening I stood in line at the grocery for 25 minutes at self checkout to buy a hand basket of stuff with every single staffed register open (which I have NEVER seen).

I have a few months worth of basic staples that I could live on but it's getting hard just to replace what I'm eating daily due to people panic-buying. I can't find potatoes (my daily lunch), I can't find oats (my daily breakfast), there are usually a dozen bunches of bananas or less each time I go to the store and I only buy 2 to leave some for others and I eat them for breakfast and an evening snack, frozen kale (breakfast) has been sold out since Saturday (I bought the last package, a package lasts me 2 days) and even during normal times fresh kale is frequently out of stock, I usually have beans and corn for dinner while beans are in short supply, rice is in very short supply, bread basically doesn't exist, flour basically doesn't exist, toilet paper has been sold out since Friday, all from people panic buying.

9 more cases were confirmed in Indiana today taking us to 39 which I've already heard had people flocking to groceries so I'm not even going to bother stopping tonight.

If people would just calm down the food situation would go away.

>Consider delaying the wedding,

Unfortunately this isn't an option. We can't live together unmarried due to our religious beliefs and we picked our current date because her teaching yer ends the week leading up to it. We're still working on getting everything we need for our temple sealing (if it is even still open by then, it is for now basically only for weddings) so at best we could only try moving it up once we have the necessary paperwork signed and then it would be get married and she'd have to get in the car and head right back to Missouri. We can't push it back (much) because she'd either have to stay in Missouri until a teaching year starts here (if she finds a job now that schools are shut down) or we'd have to find her temporary housing and hemorrhage money on 2 places.

<comment><USER6> Can you put a running mill inside your apartment? (I'm not a gym fan, so I don't understand if it is useful to get enough physicals activity.)

It is impossible to be sure, but I expect than two month of food is more than enough. In the long term, I expect problems with food than need a lot of handwork, like strawberries or raisins, but corn is very automated and it will be fine. (I like corn, I hope you like it too.) (Obviously you can't eat only corn every day.) From Wikipedia:

> _Indiana is the fifth largest corn-producing state in the U.S., with over a > billion bushels harvested in 2013._

I live in Argentina, so we are somewhat used to natural and artificial catastrophes every ten years. For example, a few tears ago the food producers refuse to send food to the city due to the high taxes. To avoid the empty spaces, the supermarkets filled the void with toilette paper packages. I could have bought a hundred of toilette paper packages those days.

I work in the university, so I understand the problems to change the job at a random time. Good luck with the wedding. Remember to post some photos here!

<comment><AUTHOR> >Good luck with the wedding

Thank you! I think we should be fine as long as the government office is open next month when we go to get our license.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm less stressed than I have been in most of my life.

My best guess as to why is that the shoe finally dropped. When growing up in the cold war, we were children afraid of dying in a nuclear war. Then we got older an experienced AIDs, terrorism, wars, y2K scares, and all kinds of other events. And while they all brought some trauma and pain, with 9/11 even shutting things down for a brief time... life in the USA just kept on rolling. But those of us who grew up in the Cold War never expected that to last. Many of us turned into adults who live with a constant underlying anxiety that everything will blow up and society will shut down.

Well, it finally did. And somehow that is calming. Because now instead of being anxious over what may come, we just need to react to what did come. Sure, I have problems I'm dealing with now, both at work and home. But they aren't stressful, they are just things I gotta get up and take care of.

</comment><comment><USER8> To answer your question up front:

0\. This is a new normal, accept that and make a schedule that illustrates your acceptance of it. 1\. Google 'bodyweight exercise' 2\. Plenty of sleep reduces stress. 3\. Cold showers give you an adrenaline hit that is quickly followed by a very good feeling. 4\. Don't eat junk. 5\. Meditate: Sit in a quiet room and observe the thoughts that are consistently popping into your head. AFTER meditation deal with those repeating thoughts.

Just some general life advice from an old man: Postpone that wedding right now. It doesn't mean you love each other less. Imagine the relief and joy will have getting married without the looming invisible fear of a global pandemic.

You'll get through this. We all will, stay positive.

Above all else: do whatever it takes to keep sober, you're doing great, KEEP THAT SHIT UP.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Above all else: do whatever it takes to keep sober, you're doing great, KEEP THAT SHIT UP.

Thanks. I'm mostly at a point where I can swat away any urge to drink just by getting up and moving around for a few minutes or fiddling with something like a deck of cards (I've found just shuffling/bridging a deck is really 'zen') or a puzzle to occupy my mind, but from like 15ish to 33/34 last year it was my primary comping mechanism as it was my father's and his father's so I'm largely in uncharted waters here with what healthy coping mechanisms are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not in the army, but from my understanding (and way too many Men's Health magazine covers), those folks know how to exercise pretty intensely with nothing but their own body weight.

Sounds like a nice way to find a new hobby and maintain some of your sanity as a coping mechanism.

From a quick google search: [https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a31698453/athlean-x- home-...](https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a31698453/athlean-x-home-workout- total-bodyweight-video/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Stop smoking. Walk in nature. Cut out caffeine. Ensure a dark, cool, uninterrupted sleep environment. Keep a log before leaving work that lists your major achievements for the day in bullet form so you have the habit of recognizing your work. Don't worry about things you can't control, because it's a waste of your time and energy. If you have to delay the formal marriage registration due to the government's overreaction, so be it. It's irrelevant in the scale of life.

</comment><comment><USER11> 1) Having a clear list of problems which are within my control. 2) Redirect 'nervous energy' into solving just those problems. 3) Sleep, nutrition. Helped me.

<comment><USER12> excellently put. i'd add (especially for OP) bodyweight training at home - start with pull up bar over door and push up handles (wrist welfare). core can be done without weights or equipment. burpees are good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> No reason to stress out about things outside your sphere of influence. Look for things you can manage, and work to manage them.

Talk to your manager / hr. Ask about accomodations for your situation (remote work? Different desks? More santizer?). Strive to keep your living quarters sanitized. Don't touch your face. Separate you from your mom as much as possible in your living quarters. If you develop a cough, keep your face covered. As for the wedding, a big event is out of the question for the time being. If it is just a courthouse thing, which I recommend anyway, maybe it will be open, maybe it won't. Go with the flow. Any half-decent relationship can survive that. Build a small surplus of emergency food. Work out with body exercises.

Take things one step at a time. Don't worry about things you can't affect. For those things you can affect, do so, and don't worry.

Take solace that nearly the entire history of mankind has had it worse than you do now.

</comment><comment><USER14> My sales buddy played me this audiobook during a cross country road trip, it's about the voice in your head, mostly the type of simple advice no one gives but it's useful to hear spelled out explicitly, worth a listen

The Power of Now by Ekhart Tolle [https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Power-of-Now- Audiobook/B002V0...](https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Power-of-Now- Audiobook/B002V0PN36)

(The last part of the book gets a bit woo-woo but the earlier bits are useful for sure)

Another audiobook for stress is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

[https://www.audible.com/pd/Meditations- Audiobook/B004IBRMZS](https://www.audible.com/pd/Meditations- Audiobook/B004IBRMZS)

You're afraid because you predict things will worsen, and that's normal...just remember we only control our own decisions, and that's all we need to focus on right now

</comment><comment><USER15> Unironically the one thought that completely allows me to relax is that I will die at some point and it all doesn't matter.

For me, this doesn't bring me down but it removes all the stakes.

Einmal ist keinmal, basically.

</comment><comment><USER16> I do morning pages (three pages of longhand writing). I usually feel a lot better by the end of the third page. It's a technique I learned from Julia Cameron's book "The artist's way". The words must be stream of thought (whatever comes to mind), they must be written on paper, longhand, without interruption and without judging yourself. And noone is allowed to read them, not even you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, I might give that a go tomorrow!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been super nervous about what Will happen and what I should do.

I wrote out a list with all of my "what if scenarios" and chose what I would do in that situation (ex. Lose my job? I'll move in with my gf and get her home cooking everyday!). After writing out all of the futures, it took a load off of me and let me focus more on the present.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm going to raise eyebrows, but I don't believe in ego. I will always be fighting, because we are everyone and everything.

We are one universal consciousness, illusioned into multiple _perspectives_.

There is the same void between neurons than between each other... It is ontologically connected!

We have a responsibility to preserve the truth and its hypotheses, and to protect our fellows. Stress is a luxury.

Use this time to have people reflect. We need universal income, meat ban, befriending the Chinese, remote work, virtual classrooms at least for bullies and bullied, low-speed lightweight low-cost electric vehicles (maybe with a ban on SUV), more renewable energy, scientific cooperative conglomerate, destroy the anti-intellectualism, protect the low-intellect from a life of shaming, then stop over-production... There is a lot to do while people are bored home. I hope people here can suggest more things to do! It is time for change. Be brave

</comment><comment><USER19> I make sure I walk at least 30 minutes a day, five days a week and get sunlight. Anything that is five miles away or less, I try and get to by bicycle. The more physical activity you have, the more your cognitive stresses will ease.

</comment><comment><USER20> A small shot of Bailey's Irish Cream when I wake up to knock the edge off the day. Nytol to help me get the best possible night's sleep at night. I also try to limit the amount I read the news.

</comment><comment><USER21> Kids at home and my wife and I are BOTH trying to work at home.

Lots of activities and discussions about independent playtime with the kids.

I wear shooting earmuffs to avoid the distractions / noise.

Planning to take the kids for some walks and etc.

</comment><comment><USER22> Running! Weekly mileage has doubled in the last two weeks! -- although mostly due to pretty much every other activity shutting down (ski areas, gyms etc) vs stress.

</comment><comment><USER23> Mind map everything you worry about. Go deeper in scenarios like losing a job. Get it all out there and take a breath, because you can get through every scenario.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm not that stressed. So I imagine my remarks will likely be unforgivable and unwelcome, no matter how hard I try to be PC and try to signal that "I'm trying to be helpful and supportive."

My dad grew up in the Great Depression and fought in two wars. My mom grew up in Germany during WW2 and its aftermath.

I was molested and raped as a child. I and my oldest son have a deadly genetic disorder.

I and my sons have spent nearly twenty years arranging our lives so we can work from home, avoid people, control germs, etc. The pandemic is mostly business as usual for us, plus some so far relatively minor inconveniences because of stores changing their hours and some things being sold out.

I spend part of my time wondering if there's some way to share useful information with the world or if people would literally rather die than show me one iota of respect, having treated me like a loon for years. Other than that, it's mostly business as usual for me.

That includes:

Playing games to keep myself occupied when I can't do other things.

Hanging out on online forums as my primary form of socializing because it's germ free.

Cooking at home or picking up takeout, as usual.

Taking the trash out immediately after meals so germs can't fester in my home.

I have no upholstered furniture and no carpeting because those things are gross health hazards for me.

I occasionally manage to work a little. After eating and gaming and caretaking, I can sometimes focus enough to write for pay, blog or further pro bono projects I'm involved with. I've done remote work for years. Business seems to be ticking up slightly for me at the moment.

During stressful times, I have a policy of "bread and circus." That means keep people fed and keep them entertained and harmlessly occupied.

I try to not do anything stupid that makes things worse because we're stressed out. I try to cut people slack for being cranky jerks. Don't escalate conflicts. Instead, de-escalate them.

Don't avoid addressing real problems that actually need to be addressed though. If x is making things worse, now is a good time to insist as politely and firmly as possible that "X has to stop/change because there's a pandemic on and we just cannot allow such behavior. It's literally life-threatening now. Please and thank you, but absolutely no."

Stay informed. Focus on practical, helpful information. Don't get caught up in panic and hysteria. The world has been on the brink before and gotten through it. Honest.

(Watch _Men in Black_ again sometime. I absolutely love the line about how the world is constantly on the brink of being destroyed and it's imperative that the world just not know it so they can be happy.)

Somewhere in there, that morphed from first person "here's what I do" to a more third person "here's what you should do." framing. I don't know how to fix it and I don't really care that much, tbh. I'm extremely tired of "no amount of trying to be polite on my end protects me from open hatred and contempt."

Sorry you are so stressed. I hope you find practical answers for your problems. That's the best way to reduce stress: by problem solving.

<comment><AUTHOR> >I have a policy of "bread and circus." That means keep people fed and keep them entertained and harmlessly occupied.

Maybe instead of my normal reading and television tonight I'll throw myself into a favorite NES title from my childhood, something I don't have to think about and can just enjoy like Supe Mario 1/3 or Tetris/Dr. Mario. Thanks!

<comment><USER24> Mindless, familiar games that remind you of a positive time in your life are almost always a good choice when stress is high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm not. This shit is putting me over the edge. Fear I'm going to breakdown.

<comment><AUTHOR> You aren't alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Stoicism.</comment>


High in the Andes, a Mine Eats a 400-Year-Old City - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151202-Cerro-de-Pasco-Peru-Volcan-mine-eats-city-environment/ <comment><USER2> We don't allow toys here for the fear of lead contamination and here are "2,070 children with blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter—twice the danger level". If only other people can impose some kind of sanctions on this business to be more responsible towards their children. From what I understand, it won't cost a lot of money to take care of its children, but the adamant and irresponsible Volcan Compania Minera won't care for the people who brings them profits.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is very unreasonable to first allow mining in the center of town, and then expect someone else, not those reaping rents (in profits and in taxes) to bear the costs of moving the citizens to to avoid lead poisoning. Their health is ruined, their home values are ruined. Their town is ruined. Of course it would've been better in the first place to not mine in such a hazardous manner in the middle of a 70K person town.

<comment><USER4> I think what the article misses is that the mine is pretty much the only reason the city has inhabitants. The Altiplano is not exactly full of other economic opportunities or appeal.

The other problem is that although these people are "middle income" by UN standards, by any reasonable standard they're _desperately, desperately_ poor. Which is why they stay for the mining-linked income opportunities.

<comment><USER5> >I think what the article misses is that the mine is pretty much the only reason the city has inhabitants.

Generally people are driven to the urban centers in the first place after their [sustainable] rural ways of life and systems of land management are dismantled in the name of "liberalization"/"privatization"/"modernization", leading to ecological deterioration, and ultimately resulting in complete desertification.

This process is taking place pretty much everywhere. Recently we've seen its bloody end-game in Syria: [https://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/5225-over- grazi...](https://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/5225-over-grazing-and- desertification-in-the-syrian-steppe-are-the-root-causes-of-war)

It's critical to understand that human society takes place within a biophysical-ecological context. Ignore that and our predictions about the future are bound to be wildly inaccurate. The same can also be said about our understanding of the past.

<comment><USER6> Sure, that makes sense, but it ignores the historical reality of the situation. The only reason this city exists in the first place is because there was a huge deposit of silver there that the Incas or the Spaniards stumbled upon. The town grew up around the mines. The easy-to-get-at silver petered out, and they switched to mining copper, then zinc and lead. Eventually, old-style shaft mining was no longer profitable, and open-pit mining replaced it.

If you wanted to live a 15th century lifestyle growing potatoes and quinoa and herding llamas and alpacas, you can still do that - people up and down the Andes still are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a non-expert, I ask, "What's a solution that meets the needs of all parties?" The mine went from private to government to private hands. The people and workers need the basics, at a minimum: water, clean air, safety, health care...plus, they need opportunity. The mine owner and shareholders want a return on investment, at a time when metal prices have bottomed-out.

After reading the article, it seems so complicated that it would take competent reconciliation between all parties, to find a solution.

</comment><comment><USER8> I support people being able to live without pollution. I also support mining as a fundamental economic activity necessary for human civilization.

But what I don't get is how this mine can extract hundreds of millions of dollars per year out of the ground and yet not be willing to scrape up the relatively small investment needed to comfortably relocate a few thousand Chilean villagers.

Mining isn't necessary a high-profit-margin business, but they really ought to consider resettlement to be a proper business expense.

</comment><comment><USER9> [meta] did anybody try opening this article without adblock? I got two flash ads autoplaying audio in firefox (in chrome they don't auto-play audio), each with the same movie trailer but one was about a second behind the other. And it jacked up my scrolling pretty hard, probably due to the performance hit (the page loaded noticeably slower.)</comment>


Why Do Haters Have to Hate? Newly Identified Personality Trait Holds Clues - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123147.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

<comment><USER2> Very applicable to a large portion of people who comment here :)</comment>


Lisp for the 21st Century - <AUTHOR> https://racket-lang.org/ <comment><USER2> Clojure is another nice choice - [https://clojure.org](https://clojure.org)</comment>


Yi an editor written in Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Yi <comment><AUTHOR> I've recently taken an interest in this editor after reaching various levels of dissatisfaction with both vim and emacs.

I can get almost an perfect clone of the modal editing of vim with the hackability of emacs. It still needs some love but I've already submitted two patches and the developers were really supportive. If your looking for an excuse to do some haskell coding this might be a good option for you.

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's as hackable as Emacs. For one thing, you have to recompile Yi after every change. Sure, it's automated, but with Emacs, the change takes place immediately.

(When I write XMonad extensions, I do find the process a little tedious. I have to type my extension, then see if ghci can compile it, then I have to press a key to recompile and reload xmonad, then I can try out my changes. Every. Time. In Emacs, I just press C-M-x and try my change immediately.)

Really, there are two parts to editor extension. Some things are interactive hacks, and some things are structured sub-programs. Things like SLIME and CEDET are sub-programs, and they would benefit greatly from a more expressive (and faster-running language). But everything else benefits from the do- anything-you-want style of Emacs Lisp, because you can develop your development environment interactively. It's really a wonderful experience, even though you don't have closures or classes with multiple inheritance.

One of my plans for the future is to replace the C core of GNU Emacs with Haskell, so that complex extensions can be more easily implemented. But Emacs Lisp will still be around for when "scripting" is good enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see no reason you couldn't add an embedded lisp to Yi. It's actually on my list of things to try eventually. I do agree the compile step is annoying but I've found myself frustrated enough times with elisp's:

* dynamic scoping. The lack of closures is pretty limiting. I can live without the objects and inheritance but I really really want closures.

* key bindings parsing. Vimpulse is basically incapable of implementing some of my most often used vim commands because of the way the key bindings are parsed.

Both of those things prompted me to go looking for an alternative and this is what I found. It's been fun so far, perhaps I'll hit a wall again and get dissatisfied but for now it's a handy hack on something in haskell project.

<comment><USER2> Agree, but I feel like the Emacs core is more stable and complete than the Yi core. Every time I try to do something with Yi, I think, "oh, _that's_ why I still use Emacs".

<comment><AUTHOR> Perfectly understandable. However I need something to hack on in haskell to polish my skills so I figure I can just use emacs while I work to make Yi useable for everyday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there a Carbon/Cocoa based version available for OSX?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is some code for it but I'm not sure how far along it is. I don't think the Cocoa UI is very useable yet though.

<comment><USER4> In fact, at one time it was usable, but it has gotten less so, assuming it even still compiles.

<comment><USER5> The last I looked at Yi on OSX (about 3 months ago) it fails to recompile due to an incompatibility between Haskell package Dyre and the OS. So you can use it but never configure it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Let's hope this has a better future than Efuns[1], the Ocaml emacs clone. More likely that most of its unique features will be assimilated into vim plugins and Emacs modes.

[1]: [http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom_a_graver/prog/unix/efuns/eng....](http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom_a_graver/prog/unix/efuns/eng.htm)</comment>


U.S. Health Agency Suffers Cyber-Attack During Covid-19 Response - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-16/u-s-health-agency-suffers-cyber-attack-during-covid-9-response <comment><USER2> "The hack involved overloading the HHS servers with millions of hits over several hours."

A freaked out public could case the same...

<comment><USER3> Indeed.

First of all, a DDoS attack (if that's what it was) isn't a hack.

Second of all, remember a "hit" can be incredibly misleading. A single webpage that makes 100 requests is 100 hits. So millions of hits could be merely 10,000's of visits over several hours...

...which sounds entirely reasonable, no? Like someone popular on Twitter posting a link to the site.

Story doesn't add up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> this is a _very_ poor article. it has grammatical errors, clunky writing, inconsistent info, and no public sources except a tweet. hopefully this was machine generated, because if people tried to pass this as journalism they should be fired.

the phrase "one of the people" is used 4 times in 5.5 paragraphs.

"The hacking involved multiple incidents."

"The tweet was in part meant to address the hacking, which involved multiple incidents."

these two sentences are back-to-back.

>The hack involved overloading the HHS servers with millions of hits over several hours.

how does this lead to a distribution of fake information? technically, this article does not make sense.

>The attack appears to have been intended to slow the agency's systems down, but didn't do so in any meaningful way, said the people, who asked for anonymity to discuss an incident that was not public.

this is also not congruous with the hack leading to the release of false information, and is grammatically incorrect.

<comment><USER5> It's paywalled and they still can't afford a copy editor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The National Security Council tweeted just before midnight: "Text message > rumors of a national #quarantine are FAKE. There is no national lockdown. > @CDCgov has and will continue to post the latest guidance on #COVID19."

Does anyone have a copy or screenshot of this tweet?

<comment><USER7> [https://twitter.com/WHNSC/status/1239398218292748292](https://twitter.com/WHNSC/status/1239398218292748292)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://archive.md/FGMmB](https://archive.md/FGMmB)</comment>


Secure socket.io - websockets over SSL/TLS ridiculously easy with Tornadio2 - <AUTHOR> http://devblog.resolversystems.com/?p=1084

<comment><AUTHOR> once again, massive, massive thanks to the guys from \- tornadio2 \- tornado \- socket.io</comment>


Ask HN: Requirements Management Tools? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for suggestions on tools for storing requirements, tracking workflow/status, permitting discussion and voting, allowing requirements to be connected to issues and documents, and all the other fun stuff one might need from a requirements management tool. This is in an enterprise environment where requirement changes may have impact on many teams and need to be tracked through implementation and completion. <comment><USER2> I'm a fan of Pivotal Tracker, though I don't know if it will do quite all you want.

However, there are Web callbacks and a nice Web API, so integrating services (such as a source repo) should be pretty doable.</comment>