The MUD Connector - <AUTHOR> http://www.mudconnect.com/ <comment><USER2> Oh man. A couple of times each year, I think about starting up a mud again. Back in the Day, I ran a Wheel of Time MUD called the Weave, and sometimes I think about porting it to Java or something. My C code base has some creative memory leaks in it, but running a MUD taught me a lot about coding and development and even some interpersonal stuff. (and almost kicked out of school...) I'm not sure what the equivalent entry point into networking/games/writing would be today. Engines like Unity certainly take a lot of the work out of it, but when you downloaded ROM or DikuMUD, you got a full game that you could just tweak as needed to learn things.

<comment><USER3> I used to play WoTmud, which is still going but at like 5% of the old userbase.

Were you aware of that one at the time?

<comment><USER2> Probably :) I played on quite a few muds back then. Lost Realms and Moment in Tyme were the biggest and then I played on some WoD MUSHes. I recall WoTmud. I sometimes go back to my old haunts and see what's up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone think there might be a resurgent market for high quality, old school text based MUDs in the future?

<comment><USER5> What were the problems with traditional MUDs? Would they need protections against modern griefing and trolling and spam?

<comment><USER4> I think there was a general perception that text based MUDs would die when graphical MMROPGs became mainstream because graphics were just ''better'' in every way. Personally I prefer text in many ways to graphics. It's like reading a book versus watching a movie. Although the most popular text based MUD only ever had a few thousand concurrent players, whereas (from what I remember) World of Warcraft peaked with close to a million.

<comment><USER6> 14 million I believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In the 90's this site got me into God Wars. Those were good times. Staying up til 2am chatting, battling, exploring.

</comment><comment><USER8> Neither the website nor the title nor the nonexisting comment explains what this is about. I know what a MUD is but what do I need a MUD connector for? Why do you think this website is special to tech and start-up people?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure exactly why it's been posted here (perhaps to kickstart a discussion about MUDs in general?), but The MUD Connector is a directory of MUDs/MOOs/MUSHes/etc. in operation, with descriptions, player reviews, activity stats, and so forth.

<comment><USER8> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't play much anymore but I used to spend a lot of time on MUDs. As a totally blond individual they were a good way to play online games with other people.

</comment><comment><USER11> Gee I spent far too much time on Astaria in the late 90s. I'm sure there's a few people around here that are in the same boat.

</comment><comment><USER12> I miss this, post-90s kid but really enjoyed the MUDs I played, its great to have a game you don't need amazing graphics for

</comment><comment><USER13> Endless hours spent on Genesis, miss it sometimes ;)

</comment><comment><USER14> spent way too much time on medievia</comment>


The Foolproof Dock Connector - <AUTHOR> http://itsmorereal.tumblr.com/post/29480903669/the-foolproof-dock-connector <comment><USER2> The current dock connector does more than just make a power and data connection for an iDevice. It's about ergonomics, usability, and usefulness.

Ever try plugging in a USB connector, or god forbid, a micro-USB connector in the dark? In a moving car? In the pocket of a jacket? Matching up a small plug with a small hole, especially when you can't see what you're doing, is maddening. The 30-pin dock connector's size and shape, and the forgiving nature of its connection to a device, make it exceedingly easy to connect, even when you're fumbling with it out of sight.

Another benefit the current dock connector has is the locking mechanism. It's easy to squeeze the sides and unlock it, but when it's in place, it's strong enough to lift the weight of an iPhone or an iPod—something that's useful when your small device falls behind a table, or a desk, or the center console of a car.

It could do with being symmetrical, that's true. I'd like to see that improvement. I hope whatever new connector arrives to make all our existing accessories obsolete, at least it maintains the physical benefits of the current 30-pin.

<comment><USER3> > Another benefit the current dock connector has is the locking mechanism. > It's easy to squeeze the sides and unlock it, but when it's in place, it's > strong enough to lift the weight of an iPhone or an iPod—something that's > useful when your small device falls behind a table, or a desk, or the center > console of a car.

The locking mechanism is long-gone on recent Apple cables. It just "clicks" in, but not as strongly as the old style connector with the squeezy sides. I certainly wouldn't try to hold my phone up by it.

<comment><USER4> Just tested it with a 3G. I can shake the cord around a good bit without any loosening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was always amazed that USB wasn't either dual sided or at least designed with a recognizable top and bottom (without having to look inside). Even micro-usb isn't easily recognizable which direction it is supposed to go in.

It's a small detail, but an important one. I completely disagree with everybody who raves about the importance of the mag-safe connector, I've never had a problem with the standard round port connector of my pc's, but this design is a huge improvement.

<comment><USER6> > I completely disagree with everybody who raves about the importance of the > mag-safe connector, I've never had a problem with the standard round port > connector of my pc's

The advantage to the mag-safe connector is not evident at first. It only becomes evident when one day you are using your laptop while it is connected to the power cable, and someone else trips over/steps on/moves a chair in a way that eventually yanks on the far end of the power cable. Only once you see that happen in real life (to yourself or someone else) do you truly appreciate the advantage of the mag-safe connector.

<comment><USER7> In 2002, a coworker who was late to a meeting and running through the office caught his leg on the non-MagSafe power cable for my iBook resulting in it slamming against a filing cabinet so hard that it both cracked the case, and started breifly, but literally, smoking. That was the end of that laptop.

I firmly believe in MagSafe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Long term, the main point of failure for me is always the outer rubberized cable layer starting to fray near the connector. It happens to my iPhone connectors, and annoyingly even on my more expensive power adapter cord.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why do we need another connector? This is a FU to existing apple dock device owners and an FU to ETSI (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETSI>).

It's like Sony with Memory Stick, minidisc, betamax, blueray (the exception) etc.

<comment><USER10> It's probably several things:

\- USB plugs are not double sided, leading to confusion when plugging them in, and often resulting in material fatigue because people force to plug them in the wrong way (iPhones are plugged in much more often than - say - a USB mouse that stays connected most of the time).

\- USB plugs are either a host or slave, not both. On an iPhone, the dock connector needs be both: slave (when connected to a PC) or host (when a USB camera is connected through the camera connection kit).

\- expected functionality through form factor: this plug will provide audio in + out, video in + out, playback controls etc. Normal USB plugs don't guarantee that functionality. Some cars have a generic USB plug to connect to generic USB storage devices to play MP3s from - now those owners might expect the next iPhone to be compatible with them - but these cars with the generic USB plugs might not understand audio over USB. Other cars in the future might contain your proposed next generation iPhone USB plug, leading people to expect that they can connect any USB device and transfer audio over it.

<comment><USER11> Why can't the circuit be smart enough to detect the orientation of how the plug is inserted without the need to double the number of pins? Manufacturers are looking to cut costs wherever they can and given the choice between whether to make these things easier to handle for consumer or making them buy a new cable that wears out faster, I'm sadly going with them leaning towards the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> With new wireless technologies like NFC and Wi-Fi Direct, shouldn't we be moving away from proprietary connectors?

<comment><USER13> You need to charge it. Wireless inductive charging is less efficient due to the power lost through resistive heating. Heat dissipation is already a problem when charing batteries. Also, cables are still much faster than wifi for transferring lots of data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> #d7e8e0</comment>


The First FaceSquatting? - <AUTHOR> http://img.skitch.com/20090613-b1iamamd4i78b634kjpis2bdjj.jpg

<comment><USER2> That's hilarious. Something a friend of mine would do to me too :)</comment>


Ask HN: How Much Is Oncall Worth to You? - <AUTHOR> At my current job I'm in an oncall rotation. Like most companies there is no compensation for this time.
I've been interviewing for a new job and some of them say I would not have to do any oncall rotation (I'll get that in writing if I accept the job) where as others do have oncall rotations.
How much (if anything) would you value not having to participate in oncall rotation?
Let's say for example your manager said you could be relieved of this duty but you'd have to take a pay cut. How much of a pay cut would you accept? <comment><USER3> I'm theory, I'd rather find a job which doesn't involve on-call. Unless you have an easy to explain reason, for some people you may be "that person who doesn't do on-calls", which may be isolating or badly impact your promotion opportunities. (doesn't matter it was officially agreed)

In practice, I like the challenge of on-call, so personally I would do it.

</comment><comment><USER4> It would depend upon the utilization of on-call and what the scope was - <USER2> if you're responsible for any critical bug in the app, or just keeping the site alive. And how often things were broken...

I'm more or less on-call all the time for the systems side of things, but I build boring systems, so I almost never get paged.</comment>


Apple $2.2 Billion Case Hinges on Two-Bit Issue  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/apple-2-2-billion-case-hinges-on-two-bit-question-judge-says.html

<comment><USER2> I really don't feel sorry for Apple. They seem to be liking the current system where everyone sues each other for bogus "patent infringements" just fine. If they didn't, they'd actually support movements for real reform of the patent system. But they are not doing that. If anything, they are probably fighting against such movements.

This is really what we need to get companies like Apple, Microsoft and even IBM to change their mind about how useful these mass-filed patents really are - them getting sued by patent trolls and losing tens of billions of dollars from it. Then, they should get the message, and then we'll finally have real patent reform rather than patches and fixes of minor issues, like we see now, at best, while new bogus patents are still passed by the thousands every day at the Patent Office.</comment>


The end of Wintel? Windows 8 ARM will not run x86 apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/96507-the-end-of-wintel-windows-8-arm-will-not-run-x86-software

<comment><USER2> This is a step in the right direction for Microsoft when it comes to addressing the basic needs the majority(?) of their install base. Getting enterprise users to follow right along might not be as straightforward, but the creation of a curated environment for app distribution and an ecosystem that is center around the common user is certainly welcome.

All the items described in this article are the reason why I love my suite of Apple products, specially iOS devices. Glad to see Microsoft headed that way.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article talks about Win 8 as if you'll be compiling straight to ARM. I haven't been following the Win8/Metro info very closely, but wouldn't one be essentially targeting a .Net/Metro VM with implementations on ARM for mobile devices and x86 for desktops? So of course you're not going to back translate native x86 apps to ARM. Even if the instruction set/API translation were perfect, the computing power wouldn't map over very well.

I've been wondering if Google would make a similar strategic move - i.e. provide a desktop environment that can run Android apps targeted to users on multiple OS's (A polish step beyond simulators/emulators for devs...). That way you can access a much larger installed base of users and make the mobile app themselves more portable.

Of course there's the argument that mobile-to-desktop protability would result and all that much usability. However, it's something that I suspect that Apple would have a harder time offering because they don't have a VM strongly involved.

</comment><comment><USER4> This sudden epiphany from MS that the market is going mobile/ARM recalls for me their about-face regarding the Internet with Win95/98. MS has always done their best stuff when their back is against the wall.

As the article says, Win8/Metro is going to be a BIG change in the way the user interface works, so MS is losing their historically biggest advantage, that of all the bazillions of legacy apps out there.

Can MS win a straight up software-quality battle with iOS and Android, when they have a two, maybe three year deficit to make up? The early signs from Windows Phone 7 are not promising...</comment>


Utopia Science Fiction and Fact - UtopiaSci-fi https://www.utopiasciencefiction.com/shop <comment> UtopiaSci-fi Utopia Science Fiction Magazine specializes in optimistic stories (And don't we need more of those these days?), hard science fiction, and science fact and trivia.

We just came out with our April Issue - which among other things, discusses the status of the Hubble Constant and features stories that travel from Olympus Mons to the far reaches of the galaxy.</comment>


Why does Sattolo's algorithm produce a permutation with exactly one cycle? - <AUTHOR> https://danluu.com/sattolo/ <comment><USER2> If you enjoy the discussion of permutations and cycles in this article, there's a puzzle you might also like:

Prisoner A is brought into the warden's room and shown a faceup deck of 52 cards, lined up in a row in arbitrary order. She is required to interchange two cards, after which she leaves the room. The cards are then turned face down, in place. Prisoner B is brought into the room. The warden thinks of a card, and then tells it to B (for example, "the three of clubs").

Prisoner B then turns over 26 cards, one at a time. If the named card is among those turned over, the prisoners are freed immediately. Find a strategy that _guarantees_ that the prisoners succeed. (If they fail, they must spend the rest of their lives in prison.)

Needless to say: The two prisoners have the game described to them the day before and are allowed to have a strategy session; _absolutely no communication between them is allowed on the day of the game. Notice that at no time does Prisoner A know the chosen card._

(Taken from [https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/44h3tu/interesting_pu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/44h3tu/interesting_puzzle_from_msri_newsletter_prisoners/), but quoting since that link has the answer in the top comment.)

<comment><USER3> That one is genius!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a nice post and I hadn't heard of Sattolo's algorithm before. The proof is a bit long though. The reference linked from Wikipedia: [http://algo.inria.fr/seminars/summary/Wilson2004b.pdf](http://algo.inria.fr/seminars/summary/Wilson2004b.pdf) proves the correctness of Sattolo's algorithm in three sentences. I found it fairly easy to understand, while I didn't manage to read through the linked post in detail to get the same level of understanding. Let me try to explain the proof I understood, without assuming mathematical background, but instead introducing it. (I'll use 0-based indices as in the post, instead of 1-based indices that mathematicians would use.)

# What is a permutation?

There are (at least) two ways to think of (or define) a permutation:

1\. A list (an ordering): a specific order for writing out elements. For example, a permutation of the 10 elements [0, 1, 2, 3, …, 9] means those 10 elements written out in a particular order: one particular permutation of 0123456789 is 7851209463. In a computer, we can represent it by an array:

           i  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
        a[i]  7 8 5 1 2 0 9 4 6 3

2\. A reordering. For example, the above permutation can be viewed as "sending" 0 to 7, 1 to 8, and in general i to a[i] for each i.

Instead of describing this reordering by writing down 10 pairs 0→7, 1→8, …, 7→4, 8→6, 9→3, we can save some space by "following" each element until we come back to the beginning: the above becomes a bunch of "cycles":

\- 0→7→4→2→5⟲ (as 5→0 again) (note we could also write this as 4→2→5→0→7⟲ etc., only the cyclic order matters)

\- 1→8→6→9→3⟲ (as 3→1 again)

You can think of cycles the way you think of circular linked lists. This particular permutation we picked happened to have two cycles.

# What is a cyclic permutation?

A cyclic permutation is a permutation that has only one cycle (rather than two cycles as in the above, or even more cycles). For example, consider the permutation 8302741956:

           i    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
        a[i]    8 3 0 2 7 4 1 9 5 6

If we follow each element as we did above, we get 0→8→5→4→7→9→6→1→3→2⟲ where all 10 elements are in a single cycle. This is a cyclic permutation.

Our goal is to generate a random cyclic permutation (and in fact uniformly at random from among all cyclic permutations).

# Sattolo's algorithm

Note that in a cyclic permutation of [0, ..., n-1] (in our example above, n=10), for the highest index n-1, there will be some smaller j such that a[j]=n-1 (in the example above, a[7]=9). Now if we swap the elements at positions n-1 and j (which in the example above is:

        Before                               After
           i    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9             i    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
        a[i]    8 3 0 2 7 4 1 9 5 6          a[i]    8 3 0 2 7 4 1 6 5 9

where we swapped a[7]=9 and a[9]=6 to make a[7]=6 and a[9]=9), then in general we get a[n-1]=n-1, and a[0]…a[n-2] form a cyclic permutation of [0…n-2]. In the above example, in the "after" case, if we ignore i=9 and consider only positions 0 to 8, we have the cycle 0→8→5→4→7→6→1→3→2⟲. (This is our original cycle 0→8→5→4→7→9→6→1→3→2⟲ with 9 "removed", as we'd do when deleting an item from a linked list.)

This holds in reverse too: if we had started with the cyclic permutation of [0, …, 8] that is in the "after" column above, added a[9]=9, and swapped a[9]=9 with a "random" element a[7]=6, we'd get the cyclic permutation of [0, … 9] that is the "before" column.

In general, you can convince yourself that there is a unique way of getting any cyclic permutation on [0, …, n-1] by starting with a cyclic permutation on [0, …, n-2], considering a[n-1]=n-1, picking a particular index j in 0 ≤ j ≤ n-2, and swapping a[n-1] and a[j].

This gives the following algorithm, which we've already proved is correct (or derived, rather):

        def random_cycle(n):
            a = [i for i in range(n)]        # For all i from 0 to n-1 (inclusive), set a[i] = i
            for i in range(1, n):            # For each i in 1 to n-1 (inclusive),
                j = random.randrange(0, i)   # Pick j to be a random index in the range 0 to i-1, inclusive
                a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]      # Swap a[i] and a[j]
            return a

In the post linked above, you swap with a random element that is "ahead", instead of one that is "behind"; also you start with a list of length n and shuffle it according to the randomly generated cyclic permutation of [0…(n-1)] instead of simply generating the permutation. From the post:

        def sattolo(a):
            n = len(a)
            for i in range(n - 1):
                j = random.randrange(i+1, n)  # i+1 instead of i
                a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]

This is slightly different, but the proof is similar: in fact this is the algorithm (except going downwards) that is proved correct in the linked paper. (And even if it is not obvious to you that the two algorithms are equivalent, you have an algorithm that generates a random cycle and is just as easy to code!)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've used inside-out Fisher-Yates with and without Sattolo's variation many times in testing, especially for testing various branch instructions in a bytecode interpreter (forward, backward, short, long, etc.). I think I first read about it in Knuth, but you don't need an algorithm bible to implement it. Very simple, very handy.

<comment><USER6> I'm having trouble with appreciating the point of it. My understanding is, if all we need is to visit each and every element of an array in a pseudo-random order, and if we just shuffle the array with Fisher-Yates, then iterate the newly shuffled array from 0 to n-1, and we are done right? So what's the point of looking it as a graph and the cycle thing?

<comment><USER7> Imagine you have a bunch of stores in your city. Each store has a piece of paper in a box that has the name and address of that store. You want to shuffle the pieces of paper in the the stores in such a way that if you start at any random store, read the piece of paper there, go to the listed store, then read that store's paper, and continue likewise, you'll reach all stores.

Shuffling like this isn't as as easy as it seems. If you give a store a paper with its own address, then a visitor to that store will be stuck there forever.

Of course it's easy to check for not giving the same address to a store when shuffling, but what about checking for store A points to B points to C points back to A? Oops. Anyone who reaches these stores will never go on to the rest of the stores.

Sattolo's shuffle handles this elegantly.

Caring about the number of cycles only matters if the values of your array are actually indexs back into your array.

If you were able to pickup every store in town, randomly shuffle them, and place them into a nice straight line down one side of a road, then any old shuffling algorithm would work to get you a "random path" through the stores.

(One huge practical difference with Sattolo's is that no element ends up in its original place after the shuffle.

This can be good, or very bad, depending on what you are using it for.)

<comment><USER8> "If you were able to pickup every store in town, randomly shuffle them, and place them into a nice straight line down one side of a road, then any old shuffling algorithm would work to get you a "random path" through the stores."

Isn't this always the case in software? Any set of entities represented in software can be hashed into a "straight line", in other words, you can assign a unique integer id to each one. And this works with your example of the street addresses of stores too -- just hash to a 32-bit value and sort them.

Certainly, if you can only see the paper in the box in front of you, the Sattolo solution makes sense. And it doesn't use any additional memory apart from one pointer per item (one piece of paper per store, in situ). There must be a more compelling application, though.

Incidentally, it's possible to use a maximal LFSR to generate a permutation (with only one cycle) without using extra storage and without using a shuffle. For cycling through very large numbers of elements this can be a great shortcut, if it's OK for the permutation to be the same each time. (Maybe could also use s-boxes to get a family of permutations)

<comment><USER9> You would probably enjoy checking out [http://pcg-random.org/](http://pcg- random.org/) it's got all that (tldr: powerful PRNG using very clever combination of simple permutation families), and a bunch of other useful properties. Also, no glossing over what exactly it does _not_ (provably) do. It's not claiming to be cryptographically secure, for instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> On creating a single-cycle permutation from a shuffle:

Take 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and shuffle it. 4, 3, 0, 5, 1, 2

Now you can read out a permutation:

4 → 3

3 → 0

0 → 5

5 → 1

1 → 2

2 → 4

It will only have one cycle.

<comment><USER2> Edit: I misinterpreted the parent; see below.

If by 'shuffle' you mean like Fisher-Yates, this can't work all the time, since that can produce, e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -> 1, 0, 4, 5, 3, which has two cycles. If by 'shuffle' you mean like Fisher-Yates, but not leaving an element in its original position, (i.e., generating a derangement) then this doesn't suffice either, since notice that the same example satisfies that condition and yet still has two cycles. You need Sattolo's algorithm (or something like it) to guarantee a single cycle.

<comment><USER11> That's not what the parent meant. You shuffle the array with e.g. Fisher-Yates and then create a permutation from the shuffled array. That always gives a permutation that has one cycle. What you did was create a permutation from the original and the shuffled variant which has the problems you describe...

<comment><USER10> Thanks for clarifying. I was on my cell phone and was very brief.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why "Ritalin Gone Wrong" Is Wrong? (Huffington Post) - <AUTHOR> http://www.childmind.org/en/posts/articles/2012-1-30-adhd-righting-record-stimulant-medications

<comment><AUTHOR> It ran with that title in Huffington Post[1], but they have some problems with their website apparently, so I've linked directly to the author's website instead.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/ritalin- go...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/ritalin-gone- wrong_b_1244935.html)</comment>


I analyzed the chords to 1300 songs for patterns. Part 3 – Interactive Discovery - <AUTHOR> http://www.hooktheory.com/blog/chord-progression-search-patterns-and-trends/

<comment><USER2> 1\. Start with any key.

2\. Look up the relative minor.

3\. Go one step to the right and/or one step to the left in the Circle of Fifths. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths>

There, you have the most popular and pleasant-sounding chord progressions in any key. If you want funkier progressions, go further in the circle.

Edit: The chords sound more jazzy when you go counter-clockwise (it is the circle-of-fourths). Thanks for the correction, @gnaritas.

<comment><USER3> The circle of fifths and fourths are the same circle. Clockwise is a fifth, counterclockwise is a fourth.

<comment><USER4> It's more like it's a circle of both fifths and fourths, in _both_ directions.

For example, C-G is a fifth if you go up, or a fourth if you go down. C-F is a fourth if you go up, or a fifth if you go down. So it can be a circle of fourths clockwise or counterclockwise.

<comment><USER3> Circles don't have up and down. :) Going clockwise is always a fifth, counterclockwise is always a fourth.

<comment><USER4> Circles don't, but intervals do. If you start at middle C (C4), you can go up to G4 to get a fifth or down to G3 to get a fourth. Ergo C-G can, in the abstract, be thought of as a fifth _or_ a fourth.

I think what you are trying to say is that going clockwise gives you successive _dominants_ , while going counterclockwise gives you successive _subdominants_.

<comment><USER3> > Circles don't, but intervals do.

Great, but we're discussion the circle of fifths and fourths, not the intervals. You've moving the goal post. A fifth and a fourth are the same interval, but in the context of a key they are not, thus the circle is only fourths in one direction. You can't decide if an interval is a fifth or a fourth without knowing the key.

> I think what you are trying to say is that going clockwise gives you > successive dominants, while going counterclockwise gives you successive > subdominants.

I'm not trying to say it, I said it.

Pick any note on the circle, it's fifth (dominant) is directly clockwise and it's fourth (sub-dominant) is directly counterclockwise. Counterclockwise is always the fourth of the note you're moving from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very relevant: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I>

<comment><USER6> It bothers me a bit when people link this to 'explain away' pop music.

It's my belief this is an oversimplification - many of these songs are written in different keys, which can create different sounds and feelings of songs. Sure, you can transpose them to a common key (as they've done here), but at that point, it's not really the same song anymore. Also, I've found that chord progressions can be quite flexible if only 'snip-its' of certain songs are being used, namely the standard chorus or verse. Much of the genius of songwriting comes in transitions or bridges.

I'm not denying this is not entertaining, and it works to an extent, but I would say that there is a degree to which this hinges on the widespread renown of these songs. It's not so easy to say they would have become so popular if they were all written in the same key, and not the one of the original artist.

Pop music is frequently spoken down upon, that it's 'talent-less' or 'garbage', but it really is like any other expert discipline - if it were so easy, there wouldn't be such a saturation of experts dominating the field. My opinion most of the talent is in production - Dr. Luke, Red One, Max Martin, etc.

<comment><USER7> > Pop music is frequently spoken down upon, that it's 'talent-less' or > 'garbage', but it really is like any other expert discipline - if it were so > easy, there wouldn't be such a saturation of experts dominating the field.

Pop music and folk songs use common chord progressions with variations for the simple reason that such songs are easy to pick up and play. To that end, pop music is the opposite of an expert discipline, it is a form that is accessible to people who want to play music. That doesn't mean that a pop song can't be complicated or have lots of technical finesse, but that wouldn't be the typical kind of pop song people play.

<comment><USER8> Pop resolutely _is_ an expert discipline, but the expertise is of a type that many classically-trained musicians barely register.

Skilled musicians tend to be timbre-deaf; In addition, classically-trained musicians are invariably groove-deaf. They mentally process melody and harmony very efficiently, which is tremendously useful but inevitably means discarding a lot of musical information that is highly meaningful to the lay listener.

If you listen with a musician's ear to most pop records, you hear a simple melody, a simple chord progression, maybe some simple harmonies, all at a fixed tempo and time signature. If you listen with a pop songwriter's ear, you hear hooks and earworms and prosody, you hear a perfectly honed and polished lyric and a melody that carries the meaning of that lyric without a wasted beat. If you listen with a producer's ear, you hear the product of sixty years of evolution in creating sonic landscapes that sound big and rich and engaging on anything from a nightclub soundsystem to a pocket radio.

In pop production, you've got to grab someone's attention in ten seconds, engage them in thirty seconds and move their emotions in three minutes. When most of your potential listeners are scarcely paying attention, that's fiendishly difficult. Pop has it's own virtuosi, an elite of songwriters and topliners and producers who can tell a story and convey a feeling with haiku- like efficiency.

Listen closely and you'll hear: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JipHEz53sU>

<comment><USER6> You've said what I've been trying to articulate for a long time - in much better terms than I ever could. Thank you!

I like the dichotomy of songwriter vs. producer - but I would guess it isn't always so discrete - i.e., production and mastering is essential to conveying the emotions and moods of the songwriting. In fact, I would argue the lyrics are often overemphasized in analysis - they are more of a vessel for tones and cadence of the song.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is awesome, but I kind of wish that it matched _progressions_ with _progressions_.

Right now, if I give it I V vi IV, it'll show me "Complicated" by Avril Lavigne. While that song does contain those chords, in that order, they function very differently - because the actual progression is vi IV I V.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is something we considered.

Part of the problem is that sometimes when people analyze a section of a song, they include a pick up, etc. Other times the song doesn't have a strong resolution, so it's not clear where a progression begins or ends.

We thought this was the best compromise for now. The tool will show you all songs that start with the progression, as well as songs that use the progression in a phase shifted manner (which is also interesting).

<comment><USER9> Makes total sense. I figured it was due to practical limitations, and wasn't just an oversight.

Thanks for the reply. And for making this. I'm a huge fan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Though a bit more on the "actual implementation" side of things, there's an Australian group called "Axis Of Awesome" who did an interesting song called "Four Chords". It shows the use of a set of four common chords in a lot of different songs.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ>

<comment><USER11> This is exactly what I thought about when I saw the article :)

<comment><USER12> ... and still nobody wrote 'Pachelbel' yet. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I consider the fundamental chords in progressions to be tetrads (seventh and sixth chords). Triads are nice in their ambiguity as to where they are going (and their sonic simplicity), and when a seventh or a sixth note is added, it generally tells you where the chord is headed.

EGs: I I I6 V V V V7 I vs. I I I Imaj7 IV IV IV IV6 I

Sixth chords move up a fifth, seventh chords move down a fifth. (the seventh of a chord falls, the sixth rises - one can also view the IV7 chord in blues music that moves to the I to be a IV+6)

The fundamental tetrad concept introduces the idea of "homophonic chords" - for example, a major sixth chord and a minor seventh chord have the exact same pattern, and the designation depends on context. Often, two designations exist in a superposition until it is settled later on (or never).

Also interesting is chordal metamorphosis, where for example a subtle shift in notes can modulate you into a new mode -for example, V morphing into III7 by chromatically altering a note, taking you from major mode to relative minor. (and this particular V III7 change is a nice way to make a strong chord change when stuck on an already strong chord) EG: Hallelujah - |I |IV V |vi |IV |V |III7 |vi |

Music theory is a very interesting topic, and I've arrived at models that do a pretty good job of explaining the underworkings, allowing me to appreciate the beauty of songs analytically as well as emotionally.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's sort of like analyzing the moves to 1300 chess games for patterns. The good stuff is when you go off-book.

</comment><comment><USER15> First of all - great job! :-)

When I search for any song, I only get the chord progressions of an excerpt, not for the whole song. Question: do you have the chord progressions for the whole song stored?

If yes, why don't you show them? It would be great to use in a fake book...

If no, what did you normally chose? Verse, Chorus? Sometimes the musically most interesting things happen in the Bridge... Why didn't you find the full progression - just for time reasons? I think if you have mostly Chorus progressions, it's quite difficult to deduce general statistical information about "all of popular music", wouldn't you agree?

<comment><USER16> Thanks! All analyses on Hooktheory are in done in sections. Analyses load one section at a time. Since songs (well, most songs) repeat the same harmony in each verse / chorus / ... it made sense for use to use the section approach. One the Trends page the section that loads is the one that matched the chord progression you searched (if multiple sections of the same song match, we omit them from the song list). If other sections of a song have been analyzed, there are buttons just below the title so you can see them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> 10/10, not least because MIDI export has been added to the editor sine the last time I looked. Now if only there were some way to redirect the MIDI under Windows 7 to something other than the Microsoft Wavetable synth, like an external MIDI port so I don't have to hear everything on that bad piano...

One minor thing is that there could be a better way to browse by songs than just the top 10 and 10 most recent. Most of my searches come up empty, so I'd like some way to browse the list of songs for something I _do_ like rather than to keep drawing blanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can see the more recent and most popular analyses at www.hooktheory.com/analysis

<comment><USER17> I know, but it only shows the top 10 of each (which is what I was referring to above). I grew up listening to mostly British music in the 80s, but that's underrepresented in the database - so I searched for the Smiths, Pet Shop boys, and several other bands from that period without getting any results at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. We used to have a way to show more than the top 10, but it seems to have been disappeared. I'll make sure that gets added back to make browsing easier.

<comment><USER17> Cool!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Doesn't work for me either. I wanted to do this with midi files (after transposing them to a common key). And apply some dimension reduction on top (LSA). Never got around to do it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Fantastic work, I love it. The results I get are sometimes surprising. I play mostly folk, country and blues so it's always surprising how irreverent a lot of pop music is when it comes to progressions. Also, I don't see the "big II" hardly at all. Playing the major II instead of the minor ii is fairly common at jams I've been to but maybe it's because a lot of people don't know minor chords, throw in the major instead and think it sounds good.

</comment><comment><USER20> A bit on a same note (pun intended), Jim Pavloff has uploaded to YouTube some cool videos, where he re-creates some of the tunes by The Prodigy based on the listed samples, e.g. Voodoo People (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw>) and Firestarter (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZImvdZ3EZI>)

</comment><comment><USER21> Reminds me of the great scifi short story _Melancholy Elephants_ by Spider Robinson, which examines how perpetual copyright would negatively impact music (there are only so many novel melodies that are pleasant to listen to): <http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm>

</comment><comment><USER22> Getting errors on:<http://ec2-54-234-254-65.compute-1.amazonaws.com/analysis>

seeing this.. include(User.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory Click play to enjoy a little slice of awesome. Be sure to check out Rick Astley's dance moves in the video...

<comment><USER16> Thanks. The mirrors were throw up quickly to handle the load and; that link that led you to the analysis area was overlooked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Being a big fan of discovering music I love the approach! Would love to check this out if it isn't hammered right now. :)

</comment><comment><USER24> Is the raw data available?

</comment><comment><USER25> The "Rel" option uses relative notation for easy transposition. Nice!

</comment><comment><USER26> I couldn't get it to work in Firefox (20 beta).

<comment><USER27> I couldn't in Chrome on linux either (Version 25.0.1364.152), looks like they've lost their site for the time being, have to check back later.

<comment><USER16> Hey everyone, I'm a Hooktheory developer. Site is back up. We are also setting up mirrors. Will post them shortly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The visualization is really, really neat, but I can't help but feel the three part article was Music Theory 101 proven with a little math and data.

</comment><comment><USER29> Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER30> Mirror?</comment>


Ten apps is all I need - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2959-ten-apps-is-all-i-need <comment><USER2> The iPhone had sold millions of units before the app store launched. A significant proportion of iPhone and iPad users have downloaded less than a handful of apps.

I'm very much of the opinion that apps were more effective as a viral marketing strategy than as a truly attractive feature. People talk about apps, people show their friends, but most of the non-geeks I know don't actually use anything but the built in apps, a Twitter or Facebook app and Angry Birds. A lot of people in the comments are generalising from their own experience and that of their peers, which is just a classic geek mistake.

I think Apple have been clever in perpetrating the myth that the App Store gives them an unassailable "ecosystem", but I think what really sold the iPhone was the fact that it's core features were so damned _useable_. Their rivals have been falling over each other to attract developers, when they should probably have been working on making the core features work better.

Look at the stats on mobile data usage - until the iPhone came along, nobody really bothered to use their smartphone's browser because the experience was so unpleasant. At one point 99% of all mobile data was being used by Mobile Safari. Android is catching up, but iPhone users still spend a disproportionate amount of time using their phone's browser. That has nothing to do with an "ecosystem".

<comment><USER3> "and Angry Birds"

I bet games is the big exception here. I bet many of the "non-geeks" referenced by you and others in this thread have downloaded a few games to their iPhone, and would be much less likely to switch to a competitor that didn't have the same games or games that were just as good.

One more counter data point: at a party last Saturday in a room with a bunch of non-geek college kids, fiddling with their iPhones, one of them spontaneously asks "Hey, what's that app that can tell you the name of a song if you hold it up to the microphone?" One of the other college kids quickly confirmed that it was called Shazam.

<comment><USER4> Don't underestimate the power games have to give a platform staying power. The prevailing sentiment in past discussions here has often been that games are interchangeable distractions, but there's a big portion of the public that is incredible passionate about their favourites and thus the platform on which they run. (We've been taken aback at the fan loyalty shown to some of our games, and this is stuff that's barely even troubled the lower reaches of the charts.)

<comment><USER5> Bingo. It is all very well to say "I and my business buddies only use 10 apps". Go have a look at a random teenager's iPhone and if they are not full of game apps I will eat my hat.

And yes there are a lot if kids with iPhones out there, either as full phones or without phone service. Where do you think all the previous generation devices are going?

In a family the app-store represents significant lock-in, both in collective $$ spent on apps and media, but also in the device hand me down chain. I bet there is a lot of pressure against one of the parents switching to an N9 all of a sudden.

Brand new smartphone users or company issues are (maybe) a different issue.

<comment><USER6> Games also tend to be the most portable and least "sticky" of all apps though. Most games are written with cross-platform engines or toolkits. If an app is a huge hit on iPhone you're likely to see it on Android not long after.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like he's missing the point of an ecosystem.

It's fine that he only uses a few apps on his phone, and that most other people probably do the same.

The problem is that those "few apps" that most other people use aren't the same "few apps" that he uses.

<comment><USER8> I've heard that mentioned before, but that's not what I'm seeing. I don't use 10 random apps from the App Store. I use the 10 default apps that come with the phone. Except for Twitter, I consider the 3rd party apps to be completely expendable without materially affecting my enjoyment of the phone.

From other "just a few apps on a daily basis" users I've seen, they tend to use the default apps as well. It's not a random cross section of the 200K apps in the App Store.

<comment><USER9> _Except for Twitter..._

This is a variation of m0nitaly's point: I would say "except for Instapaper, Reeder, and Twitter..." and Jasber would say "except for Rdio and RunKeeper..."

Even if apps 1-10 are native, I'm hanging onto my iPhone for numbers 11 and 12. The native iOS experience is great, but those two or three non-native apps make it sublime.

<comment><USER10> I still think that is really only true of the "geek" crowd. I am pretty sure none of my real life friends that weren't computer science majors have even heard of Instapaper or Reeder or Rdio or RunKeeper. The majority of the "number 11" apps that I use are mainly because either they don't have a workable mobile site (HN) or the mobile website doesn't quite work well enough (reddit, imdb, possibly facebook) but the latter category should be fixed just from phones getting slightly better and certain mobile oriented technologies coming out (like HTML5 offline support).

On a side note (not related to current enjoyment of phones) I really think it's not too long until the only things that are necessarily apps use lower hardware features (GPS, compass, camera, Shazam, game graphics), with even some of those possibly moving into the browser (disclosing location to sites already exists on desktop, Google just launched voice search on their desktop search).

I also think its a bit disingenuous to put the Twitter app (not an alternate third party Twitter app) in the same category as the others. Right now, a new mobile device would probably have a Twitter app and maybe even a Facebook app as a "native" app. When I got my phone Twitter and Facebook was already installed on it, equally presented alongside all the "native" apps like Googles, Maps, Music, Navigation, etc.

<comment><USER9> _I still think that is really only true of the "geek" crowd. I am pretty sure none of my real life friends that weren't computer science majors have even heard of Instapaper or Reeder or Rdio or RunKeeper._

I disagree. I have friends who love Tiny Wings, Angry Birds, Pandora, the DC Next Bus app, SimpleNote, NPR and Fruit Ninja. Most of these are iOS-only, and those that are not have abysmal Android versions.

As for Twitter being native: are we talking about the Twitter for iOS app? Because the iOS app is indispensable relative to other options.

<comment><USER11> True, non-geek people just have different apps. Not Instapaper, but Facebook. The stuff that is in the top 10.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If "all you need is 10 apps", then the platform is relatively unimportant, and it doesn't matter if you're just distributing someone else's software.

Personally, I'd add a few apps to his "must have" list - Kindle, Netflix, Wunderlist, Rdio, Facebook, iTalk (Dropbox-enabled voice recorder), Dropbox, Instacast (high quality podcast app), Downloads, The Economist, VNC software, Audible, ComicZeal... Also, I expect a robust tablet ecosystem, strong syncing/backup capabilities and good accessories. The N9 isn't looking too attractive to me.

<comment><USER10> I've found the Facebook Android app to be lacking compared to their mobile site, maybe the iPhone app is better. As for Kindle, Netflix, VNC, and ComicZeal I just could not fathom actually using a 3 inch screen for visual media. I've used the Netflix app once or twice when I didn't have easy access to a laptop, but those situations are exceedingly rare and the experience was very lackluster. They also completely murdered my battery so I pretty much had to have my phone plugged in if I planned on having any power to use my phone in a few hours, so the application of it would be seriously limited.

It feels like you are confounding iPhone and iOS in general (you specifically mentioned tablet ecosystem). The N9 is a phone and I cannot fathom why you would care that the OS that your phone runs on has a robust tablet ecosystem. I also feel like you have must have a very unusual lifestyle to consider Kindle and Netflix apps on your phone at all imperative; do you have an unusual commute or something?

<comment><USER13> Meh, it got better -- what I like about my Android is that it can sync Facebook contacts with my contacts list, giving me extra emails (or phone numbers, but maybe that was an illusion) -- and most importantly, I have my friends avatars in my contacts, without me bothering to go out of my way to take their pictures.

So the Android/Facebook integration is useful for me.

I do tend to agree with DHH -- besides the browser, GMail and Maps, I only use 3 apps I got from the Marketplace, plus one that I built myself.

Other than that I don't bother, as my laptop is much better for everything else and when going out I only feel the need to stay connected, otherwise I would rather drink beer or play with my kid, rather than playing stupid games that are no match for the games I used to play in the 90-ties, or watch movies on a shitty screen.

It is useful for commuting to work though, but that doesn't help me as I'm 5 minutes away from my work-place and I also have the freedom to work from home when I feel like doing it.

DHH said it better, but I had the same impression - people are overestimating the importance of an App Store. It's useful to be sure, but the phone can initially sell without it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One can wonder if a platform becomes successful because of a rich ecosystem of apps or if rich ecosystem of apps follows success of a platform, but the undeniable fact of life is: every successful computing platform also has a rich ecosystem of apps. Be it Windows, Mac OS, web, iphone, playstation or Commodore 64.

So reality strongly hints that you cannot have successful computing platform without a rich ecosystem of apps.

If you've read reviews of Android tablets, there was one thing that every reviewer brought up: there are no tablet-specific appsh. Applying Ockham's razor, is it because:

a) reviewers are part of world-wide anti-Android tablet conspiracy that coordinates talking points in their reviews

b) we have a freak statistical event of reviewers being in sync in their out- of-touchiness wrt. what is important for potential tablet buyers

c) people actually do care about having lots of apps to choose from

Do we really have tens of thousands gullible developers who write hundreds of thousands of apps that nobody wants or buys, or maybe, just maybe, developers are following the money and writing apps because people are actually buying and using them?

<comment><USER15> Compare and contrast A and B. A has features X and Y. B only has feature X. B is missing Y. Reviewer complains.

<comment><USER14> I give reviewers a little bit more credit than that and believe they are capable of telling a difference between important and marginal.

<comment><USER11> Reviewers have been pretty terrible forever. See: any review framework that enforces a Pros & Cons list at the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is worth pointing out that this is 37 Signals. Which means, just by dogfood-ing, they get rid of many of the major 3rd party app categories.

Productivity software make up a lot of the most useful 3rd party apps, and 37 Signals makes web productivity software that cover the same territory.

It doesn't mean their point isn't still interesting, it's just good to remember context.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't have a Smartphone, but I can relate to the basic notion very much. I mainly do desktop computing, and lots of it, but pretty much all I ever need are four "apps": the shell, a browser, an email client, and Emacs. That's what I use 95% of the time. Then a PDF viewer, OpenOffice.org, and every now and then the Gimp or Inkscape. So basically, 10 apps is all I need, too.

But at the same time, if I scroll through synaptics there are many, many packages that I have installed over the years. Most of them I probably used only once or twice, unless they're libraries. But for those couple of times, it was great having the "ecosystem" to get them with a simple click.

So I suppose it's always a mixture: the 10 apps you use 95% of the time should rock. But the remaining 5% should be painless, too.

<comment><USER18> FYI, as the N9 is based on Debian, most of the programs you mentioned should run on it. I use OpenOffice.org and The Gimp occasionally on my phone if I really _need_ to (the 3.5" screen is not ideal but it works).

<comment><USER17> Cool! Is it possible to attach a screen, a mouse and a keyboard to a Smartphone? That should be fun...

<comment><USER18> Phones that support USB host (or USB on the go) could have a keyboard / mouse. I've done that with my N900. I don't think the N9 supports USB host out of the box but I bet some enterprising hackers will get it working. The N9 also has TV out (but not HDMI).

You could, alternatively, connect the keyboard / mouse via USB. Nokia's N8 has USB host and HDMI out but runs the Symbian platform. Here's a demo of the N8 connected to a TV & a keyboard / mouse: [http://dailymobile.se/2010/10/07/nokia-n8-hdmi-bluetooth- key...](http://dailymobile.se/2010/10/07/nokia-n8-hdmi-bluetooth- keyboardmouse-win/)

<comment><USER17> That sounds mighty cool, thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Mostly agree with David's points. I have at least 30 apps on my iPhone. Of those, I use 5-6 on a regular basis, half of which were developed by Apple and came pre-installed.

The endless variety of the app store is impressive, but there's so much cruft in there it's beginning to feel more like an app Walmart. A large fraction are either redundant or slapped together to make a quick buck.

I'd trade the majority of my apps just to have more seamless interaction with those aspects of this device I find most useful; the camera app in particular. It's perplexing that Apple has just now decided to allow us to use a volume button as a shutter. I'll forgive that on the basis of the brilliant decision to add a camera shortcut on the lock screen — that is an example of the type of improvements that really make a difference in the everyday utility of these incredible pocket machines.

Whoever masters the art of making it easy for a five-fingered hand to effortlessly soar through those fundamental functions it's difficult to imagine being without (phone, messaging, browser and camera in particular) is who will ultimately earn my dollar. /raaant

<comment><USER20> On my phone (Android) I regularly use Touchdown (Exchange email), GMail, Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, Google Talk, PdaNet, Google Maps, GPS Status, c:geo (geocaching), WeatherBug, Pomodroido, Wireless Tether and somewhat regularly use Evernote, Dropbox, and NXT Remote (drives LEGO bots).

On my iPod Touch besides the built-in apps I pretty regularly use Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Stanza (e-reader), YouVersion Bible, Evernote, PomodoroLE, iTalk, Skype, NYTimes, ESPN ScoreCenter, Opera Mini, VLC, and two of my company's own apps. I regularly play a few games: the Angry Birds line, StarDunk, Trainyard, HarborMaster, LEGO Harry Potter, Dungeon Raid, Words With Friends and Carcassonne. Every couple of weeks I use Yelp, Urban Spoon, Geocaching, and Wolfram Alpha.

My phone is a bit crippled due to slow speed and lack of space or else I'd use a more apps there. I pretty much grab every interesting iOS app that I see and give it a try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't _need_ apps.

But why would I switch from a phone that has apps for Spotify, real time updates for local buses, Facebook and Twitter to one that doesn't?

<comment><USER18> I know it's not really the point but the N9 has a Facebook / Twitter client built in. There's a few Spotify clients already for Maemo (what the N9 is based on) so I expect there to be at least one before the N9 launches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The problem is everyone has a different 10 apps they "need" and even if you figure only 1% of apps fall into that category for someone, there's still a lot of value in a platform of 200k apps.

</comment><comment><USER23> What monastic wrote:

 __ __ __* I feel like he's missing the point of an ecosystem. It's fine that he only uses a few apps on his phone, and that most other people probably do the same. The problem is that those "few apps" that most other people use aren't the same "few apps" that he uses. __ __ __ __ __ __ __*

All the arguments against this are arguments made by people not willing to step out of their own perspective.

1) The particular apps that are critical vary per person. 2) The number of such critical apps vary per person. 3) The weight given to these apps when valuing the iPhone varies per person.

Most importantly - in a system where iPhone is already as good or better (or if you have religion of openness, a little worse) than nearly every other phone - the apps become a huge advantage.

</comment><comment><USER11> He doesn't use his phones for games at all. I think that is a fairly common use among those who buy apps.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is why Windows Phone is so much better than the competition. It integrates all of the most commonly used features in a smartphone into a simple, cohesive experience.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm taking a different read of this article, I guess. I view this not as a "who cares what phone I use, since I rarely use the 3rd party apps." I take this, and some other commenters do as well who have significant usage of some 3rd party apps (Netflix, Kindle, Instapaper, et al), as a challenge to build better apps that provide more functionality. Every time I look down at that 4" screen and think about all the things I can do with it, I still look at it and think, "Good lord, there is SO MUCH MORE we haven't even seen yet!" And it makes me want a whiteboard so I can start mapping out ideas.

There is still a huge amount of opportunity to create incredible apps. Social Media apps have been done every which way from Sunday, content apps as well, To-Do lists are certainly overdone, and basic note apps as well (though there are some unique innovations that could be done on note apps IMO). But look at those categories, compared to all the incredible things these devices can do? There are still big wins to be made in mobile app development, both native and browser-based.

</comment><comment><USER26> DHH is probably right that most people only use a fraction of apps, and that should mean any phone could succeed versus the iPhone or Android phones. However, I doubt people are rational enough to realize this when they go out to buy their new smartphone.

Even though I only use ~10 apps on my iPhone and iPad, I'd be wary of buying into another platform that didn't offer the same breadth of choice.

</comment><comment><USER22> Also the notion of using only a few apps doesn't apply to games, which is one of the killer features of smart phones. They are largely meant to be disposable, and you assume you'll be playing new ones periodically. I might keep 7 or 8 utility apps that I frequently use, but I've got a constantly rotating selection of about 1 or 2 games I'll play, and I'm not even much of a gamer.

<comment><USER27> John Gruber ran a series of posts about this for awhile, about how iOS had significantly better 3rd party game selection, and especially from larger brands

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think the compass is great. If you get out into the world sometimes and arent a gazzillionaire you can't use Google Maps even if you happen to have a signal. On my trip to Argentina for example a GB of roaming data was 15000 USD. In words fifteen thousand dollars. And if you didn't download an offline map back home, GPS is not going to help you much.

</comment><comment><USER29> As many people have said the challenge is everyone's _10 apps_ are a bit different and that's why you need a big software catalog. This is especially true of games. You can only play Angry Birds so many times. There are hundreds of other really great iOS games out there. The author says he can live without playing Civilization but when the price tag for the phone and service is basically the same that's a tough sell. We also cannot underestimate the simple joy of consumption people get from buying/sampling different apps. A device that lacks this experience is always going to feel limited even if you spend 95% of your time in the same 10 apps it does provide.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is interesting. I guess yesterday an article which compared the % of users using addons on firefox vs those on chrome. Firefox had the higher number. But its probably more of an indicator that chrome is reaching out to mainstream user base.

I don't think that the mobile platform domination will be decided by how many apps the platform has in the app store. Will it be dominated by the best platform that nails the core use cases best like iPhone as mentioned in above article ? Well maybe, it will.

But then it just might happen that the one with highest distribution channels will win the race.

<comment><USER8> The whole point of this is that there need be no race. If all you need to compete is to do the core set of 10 apps better than the other guy, it's completely doable. If you need a 200K app ecosystem, it's not.

OS X is a great example of this as well. I switched because it did the basics better than Windows back in the early 2000s. Back when it had virtually no apps and Windows had all of them.

<comment><USER6> Laptops are different for me because they're big enough and powerful enough to do non-trivial work. I use my phone for checking email and bus-stop web surfing but I have a Macbook instead of something running Ubuntu because I _need_ Photoshop and Ableton Live.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The "few apps" he needs vary wildly person to person. Here are mine:

TweetBot, WakeMate, SimpleNote, Spotify, Meebo.

Additionally gaming is a primary category for platform growth, if you do not have a vast amount of good games you are stuffed.

</comment><comment><USER32> Let's look at his 10 apps or more specifically what he didn't list. Would your phone/tablet experience be degraded without the following:

RSS

Skype

iBooks/Kindle

Netflix/Hulu

Pandora/radio

Video Calling

all games

Mine would be and there are many more that I use less but value highly. Barcode scanners, Fandango, White Noise, flight trackers, turn by turn, Word Lens, a whole suite of reference materials that work offline.

A browser can replace some of them, somewhat. Chrome's promise is to replace nearly all of them completely but that's not here yet and is really just moving the goalposts.

Today I may not _need_ all of these apps but I love that I have them.

<comment><USER11> ...and the main problem with that list is that 3 or 4 of them are proprietary platforms. So if Netflix or Amazon doesn't decide to support your platform, tough luck. You will never have access to your movies or books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Reminds of that other saying about most users using only 10% of features in Microsoft Excel......it's just that every one uses a different 10% of features (or apps in this case) :)

</comment><comment><USER34> I used to think I was this way about the iPhone too, but if I look at what apps I use constantly, it's more than 2: PCalc, Rdio, Remote, Instagram, RTM, Screens.

<comment><USER35> Curious – what do you use Screens for?

<comment><USER34> Controlling the Mac Mini under my TV.

<comment><USER35> I see, for the keyboard mostly? I always thought using a mouse over VNC on an iPhone seemed awkward.

<comment><USER34> It mostly drives Rdio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is the exact argument I make to others about why the app long tail is less important than you think. In fact I made the argument here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664559>

You nail the basics as listed above, and have a basic app ecosystem and you're fine. Much like how the web neutralized the desktop OS advantage -- we'll see it happen even faster in mobile.

<comment><USER37> That is basically what Apple did with the iPhone. There were lots of apps for the other mobile platforms at the time, but the iPhone was simply in a different class.

The problem is that today, you have to come up with something _that much better_ than the iPhone. If a Nokia phone and an iPhone are of comparable quality (which I think has yet to happen), but the iPhone also offers you access to a huge variety of apps, then why would you get the Nokia? It needs to be significantly better in some way.

<comment><USER38> I needs to be significantly better to gain mind share, not to market share.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I agree mostly with these 10 apps. Its why I hung onto my BlackBerry for so long. My jump to WP7 was mostly for the screen resolution and browser.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm not sure what the name is for this, but this is the same incorrect reasoning that lead to the idea that the russians could compete against capitalism with a planned economy. Just make the ten tractors and chicken plucking machines that everyone needs!

The only way the next really amazing app comes along that EVERYONE wants is for a seething ocean of developers churn through ideas fighting for users.

</comment><comment><USER41> Maybe there is a niche for a not-so-smart phone: like a dumb phone, but with a usable web browser. I could live with a phone like that.

<comment><USER42> I totally agree. A good cheap tablet (weblet?) like that would also be very useful to me.

<comment><USER43> That was the N800, a few years ago.

<comment><USER42> That's quite small (4 inches?). My ideal size would be that of the Kindle, like the HTC Flyer, but not as stupidly expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't agree with the premise. If Apple had nailed the basics, why there are still many popular apps for camera, weather, clocks, photos and maps?

I also take issue with the fact that just because someone uses a few apps 95% of the time, they don't need other apps. Some apps are really valuable only in some circumstances like when you want to know how to go to an obscure place.

</comment><comment><USER45> To be sure, most people just want facebook, pandora and most especially angry birds. But can I get every episode of Top Chef or the latest Golf Digest on the N9 (or even Android)? I think access to content within iTunes is more compelling than the 200k apps. And it seems to be what Apple is betting on.

</comment><comment><USER46> Andorid's biggest failing to me is the lack of a coherent killer e-mail, calendar and integrated IM experience. Out of the box you have a carrier crippled experience or the google locked in experience. Even Win7 get's that right. Conversely you will pry my Incredible 2 from my cold dead hands.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm not sure I agree that the app ecosystem doesn't matter, but one thing is for sure, there are way too many app stores being launched and most of them suck.

Certainly it would make sense to focus on the core user experience first instead of some half-baked attempt to confront to out do Apple's whole platform.

</comment><comment><USER48> But it's the same for non-mobile platforms. I only use 10 applications on my computer, too, and I try to avoid platforms that don't have these. Of course, one might argue that everyone needs the same apps on a smartphone (telephony, messaging, notes...) but why not use a regular phone, then?

</comment><comment><USER49> Variety is also good. Just because you know you love these ten apps doesn't mean you want to be confined to them. I have 350 apps on my ipod, I only use five weekly, but if I had to stay entertained for a few days I'd play all 100+ games. I'd still prefer my Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER50> The reason that 200,000 apps is huge is not because all 200,000 benefit a single user; rather it's because 200,000 apps enables millions of people to write this exact same post, but substitute Echofon and Bloomberg (his 2 daily use apps) with App X and App Y.

</comment><comment><USER51> This reminds me very much of Navin R. Johnson. Not only just in phrasing, but also the attitude that he'll be "just fine" with his few apps.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VbI5zcB8Ac>

</comment><comment><USER43> Nevertheless, the support for Alien Dalvik[1] might help.

[1]: [http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-n9-android-app-support- promis...](http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-n9-android-app-support-promised- with-alien-dalvik-22160809/)

</comment><comment><USER52> What? It's a bit strident for the sake of it. "Fuck the platform" then ... "they nailed the basics" ... that's essentially the platform too, I say.

</comment><comment><USER53> The platform as a whole matters a lot less than the exclusivity of its best apps.

</comment><comment><USER54> The problem is, which 10 varies from person to person.

</comment><comment><USER55> I suspect that in a few years there'll only be two (native) apps: Making phonecalls + webbrowser. (yes the webbrowser will also play mp3s and talk to the camera to take pictures)

<comment><USER56> Why couldn't the web browser also make phone calls?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> but everyone needs a different ten!

</comment><comment><USER58> I liked my Palm IIIx (1999) better than my Android. That's not to say it _was_ better, just that its simple, snappy, tightly integrated set of base apps helped me be more productive. My Android, which comes with nothing very useful, makes me unproductive.

PDAs were great time savers whereas 'smart' phones are great ways to get ads in front of people. :-)

<comment><USER59> What amazes me is that from what I can tell no modern mobile platform allows you to sync contact info as seamlessly as IRDA did in '99. I had a Palm V, but I could point the thing at my friends' Nokias and get their numbers in seconds.

The closest thing I've seen is Bump, which is cool but nowhere near as immediate. Plus it's a 3rd-party install.

<comment><USER58> For what it's worth, in Japan it's 100% standard to exchange virtual contact info via IR. Every time I witnessed a meeting of new acquaintances, people would automatically begin to form circles and exchange contact info. It's so cheap and effective, it really does make you wonder why it's so rare on American phones.

The only electronic contact exchange I've ever witnessed in the US was between Googlers using 2D barcodes. I've never seen anyone use IR or Bluetooth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> N9 is fucked, not just because of the lack of third party devs developing for the MeeGo platform.

As per Engadget, Nokia plans to have N9 on sale on Sept 23, right after the iPhone5 launch and several Android, WebOS and Mango phones that will be released between now and then.

Sounds like bringing Knife to a Gunfight? The processor underneath the N9 is already dated and they think releasing end of third quarter was a sound idea? WTF?

<comment><USER39> Not to mention the Meego team has a limited time left at Nokia. From what I've read Meego will run Android apps via the Dalvic JVM. If that were the case I would rather run the leaner Meego than Android.</comment></comment>


All LinkedIn with Nowhere to Go - <AUTHOR> http://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-linkedin-with-nowhere-to-go <comment><USER2> I think LinkedIn really missed the opportunity to change the way our culture thinks about work and professional communication.

Another commenter called LI a glorified resume service, which really nails the point. Resumes from 20 years ago are no different from the current LinkedIn profile; the only incremental signal is the connection base...and that's only a signal if that information is public.

The fact that LinkedIn's big revenue draw is simply recruiters paying for access to the full network is really indicative of the lack of creativity in changing the paradigm of thought around professional networks.

<comment><USER3> I don't know. They focus on the professional: marketing themselves, finding jobs, keeping in touch with people...

There's no shame in a resume service with a social component. They bought Slideshare which - in my way of looking at things - forwards how they help people market themselves. Maybe they could probably do more with coding ability tests or partner with online education, but that's probably premature.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but I just find that focus incredibly uninspiring.

Twitter, FB, Instagram...they changed the way we communicate to those circles. Not that an equivalent parallel exists for LinkedIn, but it's like they're not really trying.

<comment><USER4> A real world use can often be uninspiring. What would make solving a real world problem more interesting to you?

<comment><USER2> LinkedIn essentially has the graph of business professionals in the US and abroad. It's not the same as connection on FB or Twitter or elsewhere -- there is greater context.

And yet, the features of LinkedIn are essentially _just_ the connection base, and marketing to the network.

It seems there is much greater depth that could be explored there, and that LinkedIn could be so much more than the Great Public Rolodex that it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few years back, I found myself saying to a friend "I have no choice but to have a LinkedIn account". I realised how ridiculous that was, and within days, I deleted the account. I have not suffered in any way since, and have definitely benefited from not having constant spammy job offers.

<comment><USER6> > I have not suffered in any way

You don't really know that, maybe you missed out on interesting jobs and you'll never know.

At the very least, receiving recruiter emails from LinkedIn allows me to do networking and meet a lot of influential people at various companies, even if I don't end up landing a job there. It also builds my recruiter network, which is never a bad thing: if I ever need a job one day, I am planning to spam my entire network of recruiter, let them know exactly what I'm looking for and let them do the work for me. It goes both ways.

I respect deciding to opt out of LinkedIn but there is an opportunity cost to such a decision that you seem to have overlooked.

<comment><USER7> If his current situation is good who cares what other jobs he missed out on? More options isn't always worth the sacrifice of being distracted

<comment><USER6> Not always, but how distracting is it really?

Obviously, everyone will be different but I get 2-3 emails from recruiters on LinkedIn _per week_. Managing them takes me about one minute per week.

Compared to the number of times where I ended up on a phone call or having lunch/coffee with a CTO, VP of Eng, architect or senior engineer, it's totally worth it to me.

My suggestion: don't cut out that option until it really becomes unmanageable. Chances are you'll find it's worth the occasional disturbance.

<comment><USER8> Well, unless you're actually really happy with your current employment and income. In that case, why even bother looking for something "better"? At that point that's just greedy.

<comment><USER6> The best time to interview is precisely when you're happy with your job.

You have zero pressure, you can practice interviewing, network and you can make extravagant requirements. If it doesn't work out, no big deal, you like where you are. But if it does, your career can make quantum leaps.

<comment><USER9> Free time is limited. I'd like to spend it doing something more rewarding than job hunting.

<comment><USER6> Job hunting can be a life changing moment. Something that will, literally, affect the rest of your life. If only because salary increases compound over an entire lifetime of working.

In other words, a $10k increase in salary might not seem much but it will add up, and not only will raises compound as well but future jobs will start at a higher negotiation level as well.

Of course, spend your time wisely but I think it's really short sighted to think "I'm happy at my job, I am going to completely block out all the recruiters out there".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder what kind of job opportunity it is that's both:

1) Worth following up on

2) Not worth the recruiter going to the trouble of finding your contact details through GitHub/your personal site.

It seems like the very lowest common denominator way of finding people, which would suggest that it would also have the lowest common denominator applicants, and the lowest common denominator jobs.

Much of this thread is 'What might you be missing out on' but I see developers who have chosen to own their own career identity and not federate it through a platform that every other attention seeking bozo is on doing just fine.

<comment><USER11> > _I wonder what kind of job opportunity it is that 's both_

For most programmers (and even more so other professions), outside of the Valley, most job opportunities are not like "recruiter finding you", and going out of their way to offer you some job.

Rather you apply to them -- and usually with lots of people competing.

<comment><USER12> It's a good way to validate resumes and get informal low-down on folks.

I've both unmasked bullshit artists and gotten better context on awesome people with bad resumes because of LinkedIn. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know what the author thought they'd get out of the relationship. LI has to make money, and as a non-recruiter/non-professional account I accept the occasional undesired recruiting email or unsolicited accounts from strangers as part of the price paid. It's a nice way to have a networked resume, and I have never gotten a job through it but have gotten several high- quality inquiries that I would have pursued if circumstances at the time had not been different.

I don't expect it to magically connect me with people I don't know or to afford me access to insights of business thought leaders. The dynamic of those two (working with great people that you mutually respect for networking, and building relationships over time with mentors to earn their trust and insights) will not change substantially with technology, LinkedIn or otherwise. It only reflects those connections, it doesn't create them.

As a networked resume, again, it's perfectly adequate.

</comment><comment><USER13> One thing I find surprising is how most people will have completely relaxed privacy controls on LinkedIn vs FB&others

 _Better make my instagram private so no one can see my cat and food photos but hey let me put my entire CV and educational history along with contact info on the internet for anyone to look up_

<comment><USER14> I am pretty lax with my LinkedIn account. How could knowledge about educational history harm me?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "It's an Escher staircase masquerading as a career ladder." What an imaginative parable, bravo!

</comment><comment><USER16> Should be marked [2013]

<comment><USER10> I had no idea that this was from 2013, and it's faintly amusing that so little has changed about LinkedIn since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Maybe the author is not a coder?

LinkedIn is incredibly useful due to recruiters hitting up us coders a few times a week selling us on some new and better job then the one you have currently. It's how you can give yourself a huge raise with each new job or contract job you decide to pursue & land.

I often wonder if those in other fields outside of coding experience a similar flood of opportunities or not?

<comment><USER18> _...recruiters hitting up us coders a few times a week selling us on some new and better job..._

Let's not fail to mention recruiters that cold call you _at your place of employment_ , and are too dense to understand why you might possibly be upset at this.

<comment><USER17> Why would u ever give them your work number, personal phone number or real email address? Give them your spam info...google voice number and spam email account.

Further I've never experienced a recruiter calling my current place of work (wouldn't he or she be fired?) and I often am and or can be vague re: where I'm actually working. Especially if you note you are working for some random govt. or contracting company.

<comment><USER18> I list my current company, branch location, and personal email address NOT my company one. No phone numbers at all.

Recruiters will still call the main company number and ask to be transferred to me. We're not a large place, so a receptionist physically takes the call. Oh yeah, she also serves as secretary for the VPs and our HR department.

And I still get email at my company address. We have a pretty standard first.last@company format.

I could choose to obsfucate my employer and location, but IMO that kind of defeats the purpose of keeping my profile current.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Linkedin is a bit like MySpace (not as bad) circa 2008, totally waiting for a Facebook to come and disrupt it. Only a matter of time.

</comment><comment><USER20> Linkedin is the only social network profile I actively maintain.

FB, G+, Twitter, Snapchat and the like add no value to my life at all. If anything they are just another source of annoying notifications.

Linkedin has gotten me several hundred thousand dollars worth of contracts. Enough said.

</comment><comment><USER21> The article is old (2013) so there's no mention of how LinkedIn's newsfeed is moving the site towards a work-related version of Facebook, which poses two questions: 1) can LinkedIn compete with Facebook? and 2) Will FB add features for professionals?

</comment><comment><USER22> Anyone here has info on this outfit? [http://us.viadeo.com/en/](http://us.viadeo.com/en/)

<comment><USER23> I've found out that a good way to find out more about $website, is to just read the reviews on their published app (if they have one, of course)

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.viadeo.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.viadeo.android)

First review:

> Annoying app It takes all your personal info and gives you nothing..... And > it keeps telling server problem and I rated it 5 star just to make people > see what I wrote ..... I do not recommende it ..... A lot of promises little > give

The rest of the reviews aren't very promising, either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Microsoft Support Ending for Project Spark read full story here... [http://www.coveragemail.com/technology/microsoft-support- end...](http://www.coveragemail.com/technology/microsoft-support-ending-for- project-spark/)

<comment><USER25> Wrong HN page: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11694842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11694842)</comment></comment>