Am I lazy? - <AUTHOR>

OK so here's the thing. My girlfriend is passionate about designing her own jewelry line. She already has a (Blogspot) website and a nice array of clients, so things are going pretty well on that front.
The natural next step would be an own website, including webshop; that should give her more flexibility and would definitely be perceived as more professional than the current blog/shop setup.
With me being a software engineer, she turned to me and (as I am a good guy) I want to help her as good as I can. I basically gave her two options. The first option was to create her webshop using Shopify, since they basically have everything she will need at an OK price.
The second option was that I would develop a very simple webshop with just the basic functionality she would need, like managing products and orders.
Of course she chose the "free" option and because I wanted to learn Django, I was actually glad she did.
So I started of developing some basic stuff and gathering "requirements". The thing is, when I started developing ten year ago, this stream of requested features was all fine with me, and I was sure it could be done. I had a "can-do" attitude back then...
Now when I hear stuff like "Products should be groupable", what I think of is things like "can a product be in multiple groups?", "can groups be nested in other groups?", "are these groupings based on color or function?", "how we will filter this in the UI?", ...
An endless stream of derived requirements will fill up my brain and then I just get to the point where I realize this will all take way to much time to implement and I abandon the project altogether.
I guess that my "experience" has made me (maybe too) cautious on which projects I will take on and that this fact will limit my results and success on the long term... Have you guys and girls noticed a similar evolution in your career or am I just getting lazy?
Can't wait to know what you all think! <comment><USER2> Totally normal. You're not lazy. You just haven't learned how to overcome your own experience yet. Beginners have the advantage of not knowing what pain they're creating for themselves down the road.

The solution is simple: just dive in head first. Do the simplest and fastest thing possible. Get something working. Don't worry about extensibility or maintainability that much. Make a mess and then clean it up.

Some of the most successful software in the world was terrible in its first versions. Embarrassingly bad.

Also: just use Shopify for this, at least until you've got your own version working.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hah. Yes, you have reached the edge of grey-land where the number of black and white statements become fewer and fewer. :-)

Yes this is entirely a function of your experience, so now that you know what can be done your ability to choose is compromised. Its funny because this happens with anything where there is a surplus of the currency [1]. The short answer is that the next step on the journey is to prune meta-requirements. You have this endless tree stretching before you and you start writing the code where you put blocks in the group and you note how it would have to change if it would need something more complex and then you stub that off with a comment like:

       # this only handles one level of grouping to group further
       # will require a subclass for groups which identify the type
       # and a method for invoking that groups display policies.

Then move on. People will be amazed when they come to you and say "Uh, we kind of want to group by color..." and you say "Ok" and then blam that change is in. Basically you build your potential into the structure of the code so that if any of these possibilities are realized you can do them quickly.

<comment><USER4> Chuck, you reference a footnote in your post but I don't see it.

<comment><USER3> Sorry too late to edit, there is a common problem which is of the form 'too much currency'. If you consider problem solutions as a choice which are constrained by the currency available to purchase and you increase the currency you increase the choices and then you lose faith in the choice you make. Ok, that sounds too circular, lets try an example.

Lets say you're a techy and you want to buy a motherboard for you new desktop. If you're poor, you invest a lot time researching motherboards and then go out and buy the best motherboard you can afford. Often you have to make compromises but that is ok, you only have so much money. Now you take that same scenario where you have up to $500 to spend (I picked that to be 'more money than any motherboard you might put in a desktop costs' number. Now you go to the local computer shop and you can buy _any_ motherboard and you're frozen. How do you choose? Often this is a much harder place to be.

The problem manifests itself as too many choices. So once you have too much money you can't efficiently choose (no forcing function to give up) and once you have too much experience programming its harder to choose a path which has known deficiencies, hence the OP's issue. Also called analysis paralysis, but the enabling factor is that you have enough currency for too many choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This parallels my own experience. I too had a "can-do" attitude 10 years ago but now just can't be bothered with many things that I used to spend time on. This, however, is not laziness, it's maturity. You have now reached the level of maturation in your understanding of technology to know that things you learn for a one-off project will be forgotten within 6 months. And you are nearly at the level of maturity in relationships to know that if your girlfriend is truly passionate about selling her jewelry that she can learn to maintain her own eStorefront

</comment><comment><USER6> I'll quote a tumblrer:

"When you except to run into brick walls you usually don't go as fast as you can. When you let go of fear and focus on results, it's freeing and effective."

<http://infjdoodles.tumblr.com/post/28056863738/>

Basically, stop thinking about the what ifs. Focus on making something work and relish the result.

</comment><comment><USER7> don't reinvent the wheel. shopify is good enough and it's an incremental cost on each of her sales. how do you feel about maintaining this code if you guys break up?

yeah... your caution is well founded. she's a client (who isn't paying you, in this case). And, you don't want to get this client upset if you are too busy with a paying client to solve her problem. that's not going to be good for your relationship... is it?

I think your analysis is good, but it needs to go one step further. is your desire to dive into Django the best option for her long term interest? if she is your first client for a jewelry designer web-shop product, then cool. but if not ask yourself what is in her best interest.

And take her out some where nice and romantic after she gets the shopify website set up as congratulations. and surprise her with flowers, a clean kitchen, and a make out session so she feels better when she's frustrated that she can't get shopify to work right.

</comment><comment><USER8> When building projects people can utter a few sentences that equate to days and days of work for you.

Your experience has taught you to check & double check exactly what's really needed.

You aren't lazy, else you would have persuaded her to use Shopify. You just don't want your time wasted.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's why MVPs were invented- define a minimum set of features and stick to the plan and get something out of the door, then build upon it.

I find that some of the longest product-related discussions occur over features/edge cases that very few users may need/will seldom occur.

<comment><USER10> Agreed, you need to help her understand the value of an MVP given the fact that you are a single developer and I am assuming using spare time for this project. She has to understand that the project has to be broken down into small digestible parts if there is any chance of it getting off the ground.</comment></comment>


Greatest Legal Filing Ever? Mark Cuban Files Photo Of Mavs Championship  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110623/14534114832/greatest-legal-filing-ever-mark-cuban-files-photo-mavs-championship-response-to-charges-he-mismanaged-team.shtml <comment><USER2> Winning games != Good management

I have no idea what the meat of the complaint is, but if this championship comes at the cost of increased debt, badly negotiated contracts, or other "shenanigans" that affect the owner's equity then there may indeed still be a case.

Just because a company produces a good product doesn't mean they aren't losing money or committing crimes.</comment>


Webinar: Protect your Website from Bots - <AUTHOR> http://ds.tl/XpKkb9

<comment><USER2> I'm joining this - especially interested to understand how to integrate Distil Networks into infrastructure.</comment>


Ask HN: How to accept investment? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I'm an undergrad with a startup idea.  I have a possible individual investor who's interested in providing the seed funding I need.
However, I've never done a startup before, and the investor has never invested before.  I did not know the individual before we talked about a deal.
Neither of us knows what to do.  How do I responsibly accept the money while legally guaranteeing them their share?
Edit: should mention I'm based in the UK.
Thanks for any help! <comment><USER2> Talk to a lawyer, preferably one that specializes in working with startups or small businesses.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think PG posted their financing documents:

<http://ycombinator.com/seriesaa.html>

These were specifically designed for US C-corporations. The legalese obviously changes based on the company type [and may not be applicable -- for example, in the case of US LLCs]

You will need to start a legal entity, and based on the arrangement you give them a portion of the company ie shares, or some sort of convertible note. Honestly I dont know much about UK companies, so you should start investigating the possible corporate structures.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't offer any advice (sorry!) but I'm terribly interested to know how the connection was made. Considering you didn't know eachother before and neither of you has any investment experience, this seems very out of the ordinary and unusual. Please share!

</comment><comment><USER5> Are you incorporating soon?</comment>


Browsertop Computing - <AUTHOR> https://whimsy.space/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm getting flashbacks of when Windows95 would auto-play videos after opening a folder on a CD-ROM.</comment>


Show HN: LessPhone – A minimal Android launcher to reduce phone use - <AUTHOR> https://lessphone.app <comment><USER2> Personally prefer an open-source, no-phone-home launcher. I settled on Lawnchair [0], a clone of Pixel's launcher that's highly customizable and pretty much works on all major OEMs flawlessly:

1\. Let's you hide apps.

This is important to me since I usually firewall apps that I can't disable but have no use for, esp the ones that are pre-installed. Also, I don't want to see them or accidentally launch them.

2\. Remove Google search bar and Google feed.

3\. Dark mode that's gorgeous on AMOLED screens.

Lawnchair doesn't track usage nor does it, to my knowledge, phone home to any server.

LessPhone, NoPhone, Siempo [1] et al do have their places, but feel a bit forced and unnatural to use, esp for someone like my mom or my dad, who are used to traditional Android launchers with icons.

A feedback: Not meant as a slight on LessPhone or the others, but I guess, the key to building something for the 2 billion strong Android ecosystem is to abide by the existing UX standards and not surprise the users.

[0] [https://lawnchair.app/](https://lawnchair.app/)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17126771](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17126771)

<comment><USER3> > Lawnchair doesn't track usage nor does it, to my knowledge, phone home to > any server.

Open source too. Assuming you audit the source and either a) manage to produce a reproducible build that matches the existing binary and they don't later add any tracking or b) use your own build, you should be good.

[https://github.com/LawnchairLauncher/Lawnchair](https://github.com/LawnchairLauncher/Lawnchair)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I see stuff like this, it always makes me cringe and I get this visceral feeling that humans(including me) are really dumb. People spend almost a thousand dollars on some phones, and at first it's always magical and they use it as much as they can while it's still shiny, then they use stuff like this to NOT use their device anymore, or at least crippling the full potential of it. It's absurd to me. On a similar level, it is like the idea of buying a 500 dollar smartwatch in order to avoid taking out your 1000 dollar smartphone out of your pocket as much. What the hell people? Seems like a huge waste of time and money. Both on the part of the makers and the consumers. /rant

<comment><USER5> People buy ridiculously powerful computers to play games at 4k@144fps and to train machine learning models. Then they install software to prevent malicious mind-control-equipped actors like Facebook from taking over their thoughts. Preventing your computer from using popular internet services isn't crippling it, because you do it to be able to use the computer more effectively.

There are are a number of features that are present in higher-end phones which are not available on lower-end ones (though some have started disappearing from high-end models or have become standard, more are always being invented): IR blaster, NFC, wireless charging, AR/VR capability, camera quality, fast charging, battery life, fast wifi, USB-C, OLED display, voice detection coproessor for OK Google / Siri, creating a WiFi hotspot to share WiFi (wireless card can get internet from a network _and_ make its own network - this saved me from a big headache once). And also a fast processor which makes everything faster and improves the user experience.

Blocking usage of certain applications or services from your phone does not reduce the helpfulness those features and does not cripple the device.

Or, to put it another way: most phones these days contain software that exploits weaknesses in your brain to make you do things which do not serve your best interests. This launcher is intended to limit that. Doing so does not cripple your phone; it makes it more useful.

> buying a 500 dollar smartwatch in order to avoid taking out your 1000 dollar > smartphone out of your pocket as much

Here you're assuming again that people buy hardware in order to use it. But that's not true; we buy computers because of their capabilities. A good device should add maximum value to the user with minimum time and money investment possible. An ideal device would give you those benefits without you ever having to waste time 'using' it. Smartwatches let you see notifications without having to use your phone, that's the entire point (aside from health/fitness tracking). That makes it an effective device for those who want that, but that doesn't mean it makes the phone any less useful. You may still want an excellent phone for when you do need to do a phone.

Your argument is like saying we buy tablets to _not_ use laptop/desktop computer. Their uses may intersect, but each has areas that it is specialized for.

<comment><USER4> I think we're talking about two different types of people.

>Preventing your computer from using popular internet services isn't crippling it,

Right, but that's different from people who are trying to escape from using their $1000 phone as much as possible due to a fear about social media addiction and such things. I don't think these people are the power users like you describe. Power users would figure out how to work around things without crippling their user experience.

>Your argument is like saying we buy tablets to not use laptop/desktop computer

Not at all. Tablets can be a comfy hand-held experience while laptops/desktops are totally a different form factor. They have different contexts. And what I'm complaining about in essence is about people blowing so much money on their fancy phone, and then they end up buying a watch so they can avoid looking at their phone as much because it's oh so tiresome to take out their phone. I'm not saying the devices are useless for the record.

<comment><USER6> I will say a smart watch is probably the best impulse buy I've ever made. It is tiresome to check your pocket every x minutes. With a watch you get a little vibrate on the wrist, check the notification, and if you need to act on it, then get your phone. It's kind of like a pager.

<comment><USER7> Ironically, my smart watch is pretty much my only impulse buy over 50$ (250$), and its easily one of the worst choices I made. I bought it for the same reasons as you, except I was thoroughly disappointed at its (under-) performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this what is considered a product page these days? One vaguely non-specific sentence and 2 embedded videos.

They have all the information and images they need available on the play store, so why are they not presenting it on their own site?

(grumble, grumble)

<comment><AUTHOR> I wanted a minimal aesthetic since it would match the minimal style of the launcher. Also I thought the videos gave sufficient explanation, will be improving the page in the meantime :D

<comment><USER9> > I wanted a minimal aesthetic since it would match the minimal style of the > launcher.

Words are more minimal and efficient than voice (think of the passage from oral civilization to writing civilization).

After the introduction "So the thing I have been thinking about a bit recently" with the classical youtuber voice tone I just stopped the video (didn't want to check out if you - or the other guy, I don't know, don't care - were going to show me the product or spend 7 minutes on storytelling) and went to the play store to see what it actually does (since a quick glance to the page didn't show any screenshots or explanation).

Now I am installing the thing :).

<comment><USER10> > Words are more minimal and efficient than voice (think of the passage from > oral civilization to writing civilization).

While text is certainly more efficient than voice, I think the (very large!) differences between oral civilization and writing civilization are more down to the fact that text is more permanent than voice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this idea. I went looking for an Android launcher for this purpose. I settled on "niagra". It doesn't really limit anything, but it allows me to hide the app menu visually. I just have 7 apps on my main screen. And there's no "recommended" or "recently used" apps, and there's no google search bar and no browser on my main screen. I like it. I've simply forgotten about a lot of apps over time. Out of sight out of mind.

Another interesting thing that I do: I use uBlock Origin to gimp websites and hide recommendations to limit my browsing, without limiting my use of the actual website.

I want all my actions to be purposeful, no aimless browsing, no recommendations.

<comment><USER12> Also nice about Niagara is that you can hide apps from the full list of apps, but allow them in the search. This adds another level for burying distractions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Repost. See KISS launcher on F-Droid for a good alternative.

<comment><USER14> I used to use an old launcher that was mostly just a search box (with automatic favourites, generated from how frequently you select certain apps), KISS Launcher seems like a much more refined version of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I use this in combination with turning off Google's automatic News page on the phone to drastically reduce my *get on the phone for something specific and proceed to get sidetracked rate (barring Twitter where I am a degenerate addict..)

</comment><comment><USER16> I have this... in the form of a Bold 9900. It calls, it texts, it has great simple apps for calendar, tasks, memos, podcasts and music.

The browser sucks. The camera is a joke. There are almost no other apps. And I can't circumvent the limitations.

It's perfect.

<comment><USER17> The last 3 BlackBerry phones I had for work would randomly power cycle, often during calls. If you need an occasional call I could live with that, but dropping out of conference calls is quite embarrassing.

<comment><USER16> That would be annoying. Fortunately, I have never experienced call drops/power downs like that. If I had, I'd be using a different device too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been looking for ways to cut down my phone use. FocusMe[0][1] is one of my favorites on Android for blocking apps and URLs, Cold Turkey[2] for the same on computers. As for your launcher LessPhone, I downloaded it and immediately paid the single dollar for dark mode. I think paying also allowed me to adjust the number of apps (up to a max of eight). I was delighted to see how few permissions your app required. Love it and keeping it!

[0] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.focusme.an...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.focusme.android&hl=en_US)

[1] FocusMe version direct from developers that has uninstall protection: [https://focusme.com/android/](https://focusme.com/android/)

[2] [https://getcoldturkey.com/](https://getcoldturkey.com/)

</comment><comment><USER19> What I think it would help me (personally) was a way to block certain web addresses (for all apps) at certain time periods (with no easy way of disabling it).

There are a couple of apps that supposedly do that, but they all fail more or less miserably (one of them is easily defeated just by pressing Android's back button for instance).

<comment><USER18> Check out FocusMe: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.focusme.an...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.focusme.android)

It supports what you're looking for: you can block both specific applications and URLs in all applications. It's worked well for me. They also supply a version on their website that includes uninstall protection: [https://focusme.com/android/](https://focusme.com/android/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> But what will I do while I poop?

</comment><comment><USER21> I have written OSS launcher similar to this. It is search based and you can also hide apps you don't want to see [https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.vackosar.searchbasedlaun...](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.vackosar.searchbasedlauncher/) [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vackosar.s...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vackosar.searchbasedlauncher)

</comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of my last months as a Windows Phone user. Text interface, limited apps and browsing...and a lot of jokes from my work colleagues.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would say there is worth noting alternative called UltraStamina mode that is available in Sony phones. In this mode you have only limited number applications that are mostly non-internet consumers, removes animations, multiple desktops and also help to last few days more on battery (5-7 days on built in ~3000mAh battery).

</comment><comment><USER24> I can't set Google Voice as the default Phone or SMS app, which is obviously Google's fault, but it means I can't really justify using this launcher the way it is.

If there was a way to change the Dialer link in the bottom left to open Google Voice, that would make it a lot easier of a sell.

<comment><USER25> I believe you need to install Hangouts Dialer and use that as your primary dialer.

<comment><USER24> That's what I used to do, but I was naive and tried out the Google Voice app after it updated. If you're not grandfathered in, I don't think you can go back to Hangouts for voice/sms anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> em-bee i don't have any games or other entertainment apps on my phone.

maps, ride share, audio player, call, sms.

and messaging. but here the problem starts. i am counting 5! messaging apps, and they all contain work contacts. because everyone is on a different app. so that's 10!

and, unfortunately, the distractions are also in those apps. if there were an app that is a distraction only, then i could just remove it from the phone.

notice i didn't list the browser. that's there, but it's rarely really needed, mostly for entertainment. but most of the messaging apps have builtin browsers and/or the ability to open a browser from within.

so nope, i am afraid i can't cut out the distractions. they are forced upon me against my will.

</comment><comment><USER26> I use a very similar launcher called "Doorways Launcher."

This looks much more refined with extra features.

Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER27> This looks like the way to go for people like me who have used everything from uninstalling apps (then resorting to the browser) to installing usage trackers. Just eliminating the ability to do anything but the minimal.

</comment><comment><USER28> I've been using Befor Launcher for the past month, it's pretty similar, LessPhone wasn't a good fit for me. I've been absolutely loving the experience, this is a good concept.

</comment><comment><USER29> I like the idea of this, but I have one non-negotiable - I have to be able to use Spotify on my phone. I have yet to see a minimalist solution that allows me to use my music player.

<comment><USER30> I am the same way with Google Music, and I was experimenting with the various minimalist launchers. The one I found is "Before Launcher", which lets you pick 6 apps to have on the home screen. I just added Google Play Music app to that list along with my others, and it seems just fine, outside not having a home screen widget for easy controls.

<comment><USER9> I installed it today, following that comment, and 20 minutes later... my pocket was burning :D. I spent the next half an hour trying to reboot it and remove the launcher since it was really slow (and hot). Just before leaving work of course and when I wanted to listen to a podcast. Oh, well. Don't try out new things at 4 o'clock when you need them at 5 :D.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've been using Slim launcher lately. These sort of launchers definitely have a place and have helped me stay distraction-free.

</comment><comment><USER7> In reality, this app is really underwelming. I'd recommend Niagara launcher, or Before launcher.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone an opensource equivalent of this? I do not like closed source apps anymore.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if it's the same, but KISS launcher has been amazing for me. I have only like 4 or 5 utility stuff on the small favorites bar and everything else is hidden. If I truly need something that isn't in my favorites, I need to actively think about it and search for it by swiping up on the homescreen to open the KISS search bar. I no longer open my phone and see a cluttered mess and procrastinate by opening random stuff that seems appealing at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, only three apps allowed ? More in the paid version ?

</comment><comment><USER33> I wanted to give this a shot a long time ago, but putting dark mode behind a paywall was the only thing keeping me from using it. I do not enjoy getting my eyeballs fried every time I go to home.

<comment><USER34> This is literally a $1 problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> reminds me of the approach/minimal interface that tiny PALM comeback phone was pushing

<comment><USER35> wait, this is the same thing? And is it called NoPhone or LessPhone ....what is going on here? also, this is from 2018?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It seems quite strange that people get so addicted to their phones that they need this kind of external help.

What is so hard about self control?

<comment><USER37> In a world where thermostats and refrigerators have to go regular software updates, this hardly seems like overkill. Someone made something to help people, I think we should appreciate it.

<comment> em-bee it's a fair question. why even install distracting apps in the first place? just remove them from the phone. the problem is apps that mix business with pleasure and that can't be uninstalled or avoided.

<comment><USER38> Exactly this. And if it's really so bad that you'd need this, just buy a simple phone with simple apps.

<comment><USER37> How is buying a new phone easier than installing an app?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I need 5

<comment><USER40> You can choose a number of allowed apps between 1 and 8 in the full version, which costs $1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Interesting that people seem to have that problem, I guess I just sit in front of a real computer most of the day so it's easier to do the things on it.

I almost feel guilty that my job gives me the most expensive phone every year and I'm basically only use it to listen to podcasts on the train while commuting, otherwise it's mostly both at work and at home just laying on the qi charging station the rest of the day.</comment>


Show HN: The Gives – Watch videos with friends - <AUTHOR> https://the.gives/?rev=2 <comment><AUTHOR> I'm re-posting this as now the app actually works!

I also open-sourced the project, you can play around with the code here: [https://github.com/dutzi/the-gives](https://github.com/dutzi/the-gives)

I ranted about YouTube search quota limits here, if you're interested: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23360328](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23360328)</comment>


Excel is incredibly successful application development platform - <AUTHOR> http://bi-review.blogspot.com/2017/09/excel-is-application-platform.html <comment><USER2> Agree with the main thrust of this article - Excel is an amazingly successful platform for end user developed software. Once a .xls[x] has even one worksheet formula, it's a program. However, IMHO the major flaw is that there is no separation between dev env and runtime; they are one and the same.</comment>


NASA Announces Asteroid Grand Challenge - bra-ket http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/jun/HQ_13-188_Asteroid_Grand_Challenge.html

<comment><AUTHOR> You can see a visualization of known asteroids and their orbits here: [http://www.asterank.com/](http://www.asterank.com/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Once we've identified them, we should build a giant solar-powered ultraviolet laser system for vaporizing them. We could power it from the shadow squares.

Oh, wait.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bill Nye spoke at WWDC about deflecting asteroids. Interesting bit was how little you need to move the thing for it to work (ie, not destroy earth). One cool idea is to land a swarm of solar "mirror bees" on it -- light has momentum, so the mirrors would push the asteroid just by collecting light.

Anyway, yea, we really should be working on this problem.

<comment><USER4> How many of these "mirror bees" would you need? How much momentum does light have?

<comment><USER5> (Danger: very very handwavy calculations ahead. Treat the result with caution, or even contempt.)

One photon of light at wavelength lambda has energy hc/lambda and momentum h/lambda; in other words momentum = energy / c. If the asteroid is near earth then it's getting about 1kW/m^2 of light energy from the sun. So for each m^2 of area and each second of time, that's 1e3 / 3e8 kg m/s ~= 3e-7 kg m/s of momentum; if the asteroid is, say, 99942 Apophis then its mass is 4e10 kg; let's call it 3e10 kg, for a net acceleration of 1e-17 m/s^2 per square metre of area. If adding the mirrors replaces absorption with perfect reflection, then that's also the size of the change in acceleration they produce.

According to Wikipedia, which is always right (except when it's wrong), averting a collision t years in the future requires a velocity change on the order of 0.035/t m/s.

If we assume (this seems pretty damn dubious to me, but never mind) that the effect of our extra momentum from sunlight accumulates "perfectly" over time, and if we suppose we have 10 years' warning, and if we handwave away some details, then each m^2 of mirror gets us 1e-17 m/s^2 * 3e8 s = 3e-8 m/s of velocity change, and we need 3.5e-3 m/s. So we'd need about 10^5 m^2, or a patch 300m on each side. That's a lot of bees.

In practice, you won't get perfect momentum, and the asteroid may not always hold the same face to the sun, and the changes may not accumulate in the way you want and may be in an ill-chosen direction, and all the numbers above are only approximations, etc., etc., etc., so you probably need more than that to have much confidence of saving the earth.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: IT concerns using an apple laptop in a windows environment? - <AUTHOR>

Howdy HN,
I'm upgrading my laptop at work and I'm campaigning to have a Mac Book Pro instead of a Dell Laptop. IT has concerns about the security of integrating OSX into what is solely a Windows 7 / Windows XP environment. I was hoping you could help me out:
* What resources can you point me to that would help assess the security concerns?
* Are there any immediate security concerns that come to mind? (I'm meeting with the IT Manager later this week and I'd like to have an understanding of his possible objections)
* Any advice that you'd give?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> The only real security concern that I can see is that if you become infected with some sort of malware (or you get hacked), there may be no other noticeable activity on the network. So, you might say "my computer seems a little slow today," but since the malware wouldn't be infecting the Windows computers, there'd be no alerts on their IDS.

The preceding scenario is a ridiculously contrived and unlikely event.

The truth is that the BSD kernel underneath OS X has a lot more security credibility than does Windows. Furthermore, since OS X has a lower market share than Windows, it is less likely that malware creators will target it. This does not make you immune from hacking, but since you are directly comparing your situation with Windows alternatives, I think it's fair.

Additionally, OS X these days is very inter-operable, so I wouldn't really worry about IT compatibility too much.

The biggest concern I'd have is convincing them that it's worth triple the cost of its Dell counterpart. That one's a little more tricky.

</comment><comment><USER3> The biggest problem will be the lack of knowledge of Apple products and software from the perspective of he IT department. They can't manage and secure something they don't know how to use.

If you're the only person in the company with a Mac and you have a complex network of interrelated systems then supporting just one Mac on the network just may not be worth it and may increase the tech support issues for everyone, not just you.

In the simplest case, if you are sending a MS Word document to a collegue, the document may not render in the same way on the Mac and Windows versions of the platform. The IT department is likely to have to service request calls for an issue that wouldn't exist in a controlled and consistent environment.

Of course, if your IT systems are fairly open and have very few restrictions in place regarding installation of apps and personal settings, then there is very little added risk or overhead in including a Mac in the network. Just don't expect your IT department to support it.

</comment><comment><USER4> The simple fact that the security concerns are less well known is in and of itself a security concern. In other words, the additional overhead for the IT department associated with assessing and patching vulnerabilities makes the enterprise less secure.

On top of that, what's the business case for using a Mac?

</comment><comment><USER5> You could always install VmWare Fusion + Windows 7 in order to remain compliant with corporate standards and security measures. Unity lets you run Windows apps seamlessly.

I would suspect that IT management is worried that once the other workers see how cool and reliable your Mac is, they'll want one too.

</comment><comment><USER6> As far as I know the security concerns wouldn't be any different to connecting from a Windows box. This should help you [http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=6&page=3](http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=6&page=3).

<comment><USER7> This blog post is from 2005 and very outdated. A lot has changed in Mac OS X regarding Active Directory and its configuration.

To join a domain, you open up System Preferences, click Accounts, and then Login options. "Network Account Server" is what you want.

If you want to use the latest version of Directory Access instead, use <http://helpdesk.wisc.edu/ams/page.php?id=12248>

Don't bother integrating Workgroup Preferences and all that in AD, it's flakey as crap. We can't even get Apple engineers to get it running reliably.</comment></comment>


The Nothing App - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN5up9FkVDo Designing The Nothing App I really wanted to put emphasis on a minimal user interface. I wanted to go back to the roots of what it meant to do nothing. I used the newest technology, Swift programming language, to make sure I was pushing the boundaries of what we can do with nothing. I think you're really going to love this. - Jake Chapman (lead designer / engineer) <comment><USER2> lol made me laugh</comment>


Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/longform/medical-records/ <comment><USER2> EHR is one of many reasons I'm no longer a volunteer EMT. I could enter a new patient record on paper in about 15 minutes. After we switched to EHR, it took 45 minutes. The UI was just horribly designed. It was a web form from 1995; it looked nothing like the front end of a modern consumer-facing UI from Silicon Valley. But all EHR software is enterprise software, so it doesn't have to compete on usability.

As a software engineer, I felt insulted by being forced to use this crap. And sad for my healthcare colleagues who just assumed it had to be this way.

</comment><comment><USER3> Epic gets mentioned a lot in this article. Afaik they use the MUMPS language in their development, subject of a famous article in the daily wtf</comment>


HiDPI/Retina image upsizing by clients & servers, not javascript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/skeltoac/HAIR <comment><USER2> I really like this approach. Is there a plan in place to implement this on a server and client? A simple node server with a hacked up moz might be a good start for a prototype.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope to implement server support on WordPress.com if browser hackers are interested. Our image serving architecture is mostly in PHP and has access to originals, so this should not be terribly hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why is this information put in the HTTP headers rather than the HTML for the page in question? It just seems like a relatively obscure place to hide what's bound to be a common bit of functionality; not the most noob-friendly solution.

I submitted a different potential solution to whatwg forums and a few relevant mailing lists, without much significant feedback, using meta tags to indicate availability of 2x image assets. It does seem more practical to me from the point of view of an author, but maybe I'm missing something important:

[http://forums.whatwg.org/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4998](http://forums.whatwg.org/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4998)

<comment><USER4> Because your markup doesn't need to change to support HiDPI. The beauty of this solution is that the browser can be DPI aware and use HTTP content- negotiation behind the scenes to ask for higher resolution images. This is one of the main, albeit underused, use cases of content-negotiation with Accept headers. The main problem is that it requires both servers and browsers to add support. Whereas with a markup based solution that pointed out how to find hidpi assets existing servers can serve two files just fine.

<comment><USER3> It seems inflexible and potentially inefficient though. What if you have 2x assets available for some images but not others? Will the client be making two requests in all those cases? Or will it simply break?

<comment><USER4> Server logic can figure it out just fine. For a familiar example check out nginx's static gzip compression support [1]. This works today. Browsers can say they support gzip compressed assets in a header. You don't have to add markup to say "get the smaller version". When nginx gets a request it looks to see "is gzip on the accept-encoding list"? If so, it looks to see if a compressed version of the file is sitting on the server and serves that directly. If not, it compresses on the fly.

Same story could apply here with a few different details.

[1]: <http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpGzipStaticModule>

<comment><USER3> I don't understand how that resolves the issue. Let's say you have two img elements on your page, linking to their respective 1x image assets, and you have a 2x version of the image available for the first but not the second. You indicate 2x availability in your HTTP header, and a client which supports this protocol wishes to display 2x images.

Does the client specifically request 2x image file paths for both images, and when the second one fails, as no 2x version exists, the client makes another request for the 1x version, or does it simply fail to load the image?

Or does the client request the 1x asset like usual, and when the server determines that one is unavailable in 2x res, it sends the 1x transparently? If that's the case, do we not care about the server using resources determining availability of individual 2x assets because it's insignificant? And could the client easily choose to request 1x assets rather than 2x in a non-hackish way even if it does support 2x resolution (maybe it's concerned about bandwidth)?

<comment><USER5> _You indicate 2x availability in your HTTP header_

This part never happens. The client simply signals that it would like 2x images if possible with every request, and the server sends the 2x images when it is possible, and 1x images when not. This is the exact same thing as has been done with gzip compression for years.

The client can choose to get 1x assets by just not sending the header indicating that it wants 2x assets.

<comment><USER3> And what about the performance penalty for the server to determine 2x availability for sites where only a fraction of images are available at 2x res?

I'm also not sure I fully understand how we clue the server in on where to look for the 2x version of a 1x asset. In the examples given, do the 2x versions have the same filenames as the 1x versions, but they're in the 'image' directory rather than 'img'? Seems like a significant limitation to force different assets to share the same filename, if that's what's going on here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is needlessly complex. I really don't see pixel ratios of anything more than 2x being useful. Having two versions of assets is painful enough.

The apple convention, of having images with "@2x" appended, works quite well. The server could look for a http header indicating DPI and serve accordingly. This gives the developer to provide either one single HiDPI that's served to all clients, or separate files for HiDPI and normal resolution.

<comment><USER7> It is short-sighted to assume that 2x will be the limit of high-resolution images. If we're making browser developers add support for this, we might as well have it be at least somewhat future-proof.

<comment><USER8> Meaning of "1x" has changed from 72dpi to 100-130dpi over time.

It's not unreasonable to assume that same will happen with "2x" as screen densities gradually improve, and over time it will shift from 220dpi to 300dpi-400dpi (for desktop viewing distances).

Density doesn't need to improve indefinitely, it just needs to cross the "retina" threshold (which arguably 2x does already).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We actually talked to some Safari engineers about this and the response was that image-sets were the way forward. I am not sure I agree. The key argument was that the accepts header puts the burden entirely on the server and does not account for multi-resolution environments, such as multiple monitor setups. Content moving from one device/monitor to another could make use of image-sets to load in the appropriate image for its display.

<comment><USER7> I wish image-set was more efficient to use. I'm way too lazy to maintain explicit lists of every variant file path for every image if I can avoid it (which should be possible if we take advantage of systematic file naming conventions already commonly in place). I'd take this proposed solution over image-set, simply because it avoids that extra work, not to mention being more backwards-compatible; image-set would require you to list the path for the 1x asset of an img element in both the 'src' attribute and the image-set attribute in order to maintain backwards-compatibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It won't succeed. The closest parallel is the Accept-Language feature in the HTTP headers, which never took off. By the time this could be implemented in many browsers and servers, everyone will have already solved the problem with javascript.

<comment><USER7> JavaScript is not a real solution to this problem, since it takes the control away from the client and condemns web developers to maintaining those horrible hacks forever as clients with unforeseen capabilities or expectations emerge. We need _something_ that allows developers to add support for 2x images without having the server make any assumptions about what the client wants. If the client wants 1x images for whatever reason, it doesn't matter what their screen resolution or pixel scaling factor is, or whatever your script is using to determine support for 2x image display.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How would this effect sprite sheets and images used in with the canvas 2d API?</comment>


When a customer refunds your paid app, Apple refunds its 30% cut [edited] - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288344977169235968 <comment><USER2>
      I was mistaken in my original (now deleted) tweet and have been corrected by a few people

      Apple does not keep the 30% commission on a refund the refund happens as you'd expect. I don't know where I got the idea that it worked the way I thought it did

This was a follow-up by the tweet's author.

[https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?...](https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?s=21)

<comment><USER3> Misinformation really does spread like wildfire. Even with the number of naysayers on Hacker News we still seemed to have had a lapse in critical thinking.

I've been wanting to get into research on the study of the spread of tweets like this. Anyone have pointers for reading material?

<comment><USER4> I have sold apps on the App Store for a decade now, and I have to admit I did believe the original tweet. I was going to go through the financial reports during the weekend to verify, but the initial reaction was "of course they would do this, it's Apple".

<comment><USER5> The fact this tweet is so believable says something about how poorly Apple has been treating its developers the last decade.

<comment><USER6> Or it just says something about confirmation bias.

<comment><USER7> Confirmation bias is usually as a result of previous behaviour allowing us to make assumptions about how something would respond/act. Confirmation bias in this situation is because it sounds in line with how Apple operate elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Payment processors generally don't refund fees on payments when the payments are refunded, this isn't new. It's remarkable mainly because (a) it's 30%, not 3% and (b) the App store doesn't position itself as a payments processor the way Stripe does, so it sounds really weird that they would act like one.

If the app store took a 3% chunk and never refunded it regardless of the ongoing status of the transaction, that would put them right in line with other payment processors. It would also still net them billions of dollars, I think!

<comment><USER9> Credit card companies (i.e., Visa, Mastercard) absolutely do refund fees on payments when the retailer processes a refund. This is why retailers generally require you to use the same method of payment to get your refund.

It's uniquely _online_ processors that do not refund fees.

<comment><USER10> My experience with PayPal was that they almost always gave me my fees back when I processed a refund (there were corner cases where that didn't happen); it is possible the rules changed or that I am misremembering the extent of the cases when they don't, though (I haven't processed payments in a year and a half).

<comment><USER11> Paypal about a year ago changed their policy that they would keep the credit card processing fees for refunded orders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does this mean if there's a developer I don't like, I can buy their stuff and refund it to arbitrarily cost them money at no cost to myself and there's nothing they can do about it?

That seems ... not great, especially these days. What happens when mobs of internet morons decide review bombing isn't sufficient and realize Apple will help them cause direct financial harm instead?

<comment><USER13> I think this is part of what is holding back iPad software. You can't charge $100 for Sketch and lose $30 when someone asks for a refund. Apple designed this around $1-$10 apps where losing $2 at volume is fine.

What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. When you get a refund of a paid app it is on the honor system for them to delete it. It is removed from their account, so they can no longer download/update, but the installed binary is not affected.

<comment><USER14> I'm glad that Apple can't remotely delete apps from my device. It would be somewhat dystopic if they had that capability.

<comment><USER15> But they could make the refund wait until you do!

It wouldn't be foolproof in case of backups but it would be a lot better than an honor system.

<comment><USER14> That's true; that would be the better solution. Requesting a refund before deleting the app would give the user an error message telling them to delete it.

<comment><USER16> With the corner case that if the user no longer has access to a device with the app installed, they cannot get a refund.

<comment><USER17> If you lose the product you bought you can generally not get an refound ;=)

And doesn't apple have some form of remote logout/factory reset feature for lost devices?

EDIT: (Sure requiring remote factory reset for lost devices would not work if it's a iPad which has not internet connection and never gets one again in it's live time, but that would be an acceptable corner case I thing).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Had a look and it seems that Google do refund the transaction fee, which I think adds weight to the argument that is unfair behaviour by Apple:

[https://support.google.com/googleplay/android- developer/answ...](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android- developer/answer/2741495?hl=en-GB)

"Google will return the transaction fee to you. You'll see the returned transaction fee on your next earnings report."

<comment><USER18> "which I think adds weight to the argument that is unfair behaviour by Apple"

Apple takes back from the developer exactly what they gave the developer. This has been verified by a number of people, and this submission is just farcically wrong.

How is this nonsense front page on HN? Is this community this clueless?

<comment><USER19> Do you have any sources for your claim? The original claim - i.e. developers lost money for each refund - is backed not only by the original post, but also by several other sources linked in the comments.

<comment><USER18> Which sources would those be? Someone linking to preliminary text of Apple's refund policy when they were forming the app store in 2009? Because that is meaningless.

Apple takes back exactly what they gave the developer. There are _zero_ sources demonstrating otherwise (and the source of this links a basic sales chart -- guess what, that doesn't prove his point whatsoever). There are literally a half dozen developers replying to him countering his claim, yet it's remarkable seeing the gullibility of this crowd regarding a simply absurd claim.

The guy's trump card is that they had "negative days". No shit. One day they had more refunds than sales. That doesn't mean Apple is taking an extra 30%.

EDIT: Even the Reddit story on this absurd tweet now has a top comment refuting it, and a wide acknowledgment that they need to be more discerning. HN -- all the top comments are falling in line. My two comments are at -1. LOL. My bio that this place is Dunning-Kruger demonstrated writ large holds true. What an embarrassment.

<comment><USER20> cc @dang

<comment><USER21> He is caustic but not wrong. If anything, this story should be taken down. It's factually incorrect and even the tweet in the link has been deleted.

<comment><USER20> Calling people idiots without citing sources is really unproductive. If you're right, cite sources, so folks can be educated. Trusting a random hn user who doesn't back up their claims is something even @hn_check would scoff at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A Statement of Tim Cook for the House of Representatives claimed that "For the vast majority of apps on the App Store , developers keep 100% of the money they make." [1]

How can this be even remotely true if Apple takes a 30% commission for every sale in the App Store?

[1] [https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG...](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20200729/110883/HHRG-116-JU05-Wstate- CookT-20200729.pdf)

<comment><USER23> Its wily political speak. The devs keep 100% of what they make. What do they make? 70% of the price on app store.

They keep 100% of the 70% of the store price. Truthful statement, just one that is designed to mislead you.

<comment><USER24> This. Plus: most apps don't make money. It's easy to keep 100% of zero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> App stores need heavy regulations. It's not only Apple but Google and even steam to a small extent. Apple is of course the biggest offender as they heavily guard their monopoly with code signing enforcement. This shouldn't have been legal. They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

<comment><USER26> Why do app stores need separate regulations?

> They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.

But they aren't, this is a rather competitive space.

<comment><USER27> Competitive? It is an oligopoly with tacit collusion on price fixing. This is the exact reason why anti-trust legislation exists.

A competitive market would be one in which the platform providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and support competing app markets which meet requirements, and which actively compete on features and price.

If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline market competitive?

To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible to use third- party gas stations, but the manufacturers had hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?

<comment><USER28> Can you prove price fixing? Or collusion? If you want to make the claim, then let's see the proof.

<comment><USER29> What options are there? Google Play, Apple App Store.

How much do they take? 30% and 30%.

Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where someone can compete on that cut? No.

Is there a different store you can use with the same privileges as these two stores? No.

Can you take your payments outside of the store and manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%? No.

<comment><USER30> I doubt it's news to you, but Android openly allows app stores other than Google's.

<comment><USER29> It's does, but between Google's certification process putting restrictions on device manufacturers and the fact that usually those alternative app stores can't be installed from Google Play, asking side the untrusted sources scare tactic against users, and Google Play protect so closely integrated in the OS now, theyre not really viable market places.

At best I guess we could say Google has a carrot approach where Apple prefers the stick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's amazing that a decade and a half later Apple still hasn't fulfilled Steve Jobs' original dream of merging the web and apps.

He wasn't saying third party apps should be HTML5 just to stall for time. He really believed it. And it was a good idea and still is.

Processors, memory, bandwidth, and browsers have all advanced by leaps and bounds and yet the dream remains unrealized and Apple is the most to blame. They got addicted to the ill gotten gains of their walled garden and can't bring themselves to kick the addiction. Rent seeking is a powerful force.

It's pathetic for a company so good at being honest with themselves and moving forward when they know what the best future is.

The App Store shouldn't exist at this point. It has outlived its usefulness. It's in their users' best interests to move beyond it. And yet maybe it's too traumatic and daring a move for anyone other than Steve Jobs to attempt.

Tim Cook could drop the headphone jack because it didn't damage the bottom line but dropping the App Store would actually cost something in the short term even if it is the right thing to do for everyone in the long term.

<comment><USER32> I think they were creating a walled garden and this was just lip service. Blaming it on state of tech/HTML5/etc was easy. The app store could be open from administration/censors and thus would function exactly like the web even if native code was required. The frustrating part of current state is they censor who, what, and how can be brought to market and the 30% cut is just egregious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This does not match my experience with my App, Nikola. I've been able to match up the transactions and refunds as 1 to 1, price-wise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I wonder if it varies from region to region perhaps? Going to do a bit more research as this guy seems quite convinced they are taking the cut but evidently you've experienced otherwise!

<comment><USER33> Yeah I'm not sure what the discrepancy is. This afternoon I'm going to dig a bit more into my records.

In my data right now I see a few examples of an $80 purchase match to $56 in proceeds (70%) matched to $56 of a refund.

I can't say I think the 30% fee is appropriate anymore, but this particular case being made about refunds does not appear to be accurate for me at least.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could be that this developer is confused, maybe the way Apple represent the data is confusing in the records or something... in which case my apologies for spreading false information, but he seemed pretty convinced!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Tweet is unavailable (deleted). Backup [http://archive.is/wqWYK](http://archive.is/wqWYK) New twitter link: [https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?...](https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?s=21)

<comment><USER35> This wasn't true: [https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?...](https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288625617873694721?s=21)

Recanted there. People need to think more critically.

<comment><USER36> Ugh. This factoid is now stuck in a bunch of memories though, and they're swear it's true the next time it gets debated.

<comment><USER37> To go deeper into the rabbit hole, lots of people dislike Apple, so this tweet could have been a calculated effort to further tarnish Apple's reputation.

Plan:

1\. Create fake news that X people see.

2\. Wait until X is large.

3\. Delete fake news, use "plea ignorance" apology to save face, that Y (Y << X) people see.

Congrats you now have a large number of people who now have an even worse opinion on the subject of the news. Repeat steps to cause even more damage.

<comment><USER38> Or be like the Hey app.

Pretend to be the victim, whip up a whole lot of free PR sympathy and then make the minor change to the app and resubmit whilst no one is paying attention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Has anyone confirmed this is true (or is this tweet the only source...)?

[https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/105454](https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/105454) "Apple has the RIGHT TO withhold" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989256](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23989256)

It seems you can only get a refund by reporting a problem, which means if your app works as described you shouldn't be able to request a refund.

<comment><USER40> Here's a second source: [https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app- refund-p...](https://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund- policies-could-bankrupt-developers/)

<comment><USER36> That article is also talking about what apple COULD do - it doesn't say apple is actually doing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So to update and add to their old slogan: _Think different... but we still keep our 30% cut_

Tech in general has quite a few things about itself it needs to fix. Is it ethical for Apple to write the OS, run the store, sell its own wares AND compete with people it charges, eg 30%, to compete? Same question for other stores, eg Google? Both companies have analytics to determine which of the crop is successful and therefore needs to be harvested. Is this a level playing field? Do we expect such? Should we?

These aren't trivial or straightforward issues. It will be interesting to see over the _next 20 years_ how this plays out. It would be better with a shorter time frame but... nothing involving legalities is usually fast.

<comment><USER42> Charging 30% to competitors that it doesn't charge to itself isn't really a problem because of opportunity cost. If an Apple product takes revenue from a competitor that's paying them 30% then they still have all the costs of running their competing service and make less money from their 30% cut. The margins have to be really good for such a thing to be worthwhile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Reading the thread here is an interesting datapoint:

[https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314](https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314)

\- Since 2011 Codea has had 1,768 refunds

\- Estimate it cost us ~$8,000 USD to pay Apple's 30%

\- A single day in 2017 saw 193 returns and I have no idea why or how that's possible

later:

> _Yes, we've had a few days of negative revenue in the last few years due to > people refunding Codea. Apple keeps their 30% no matter what_

</comment><comment><USER44> Apple keeps on abusing their dominant market position to make huge profits at the expense of small developers. They subject apps to huge fees, then release competing apps at the same price (such as Apple Music). They prevent companies from selling ebooks on from their apps without taking a huge cut, again, despite the fact that they have a competing app in iBooks. These are perhaps the most egregious examples, but the list is very long of other complaints.

How long will they get away with this before antitrust regulation kicks in? They are so focused on extracting rent that they keep on poking this sleeping bear, and it eventually will be a huge problem for them. If they don't reverse course, expect to see large reductions in their profits and stock price when this happens.

</comment><comment><USER45> App Stores are doing to software developers what supermarkets did to food producers and most other manufacturers: moving all power and profit to distributors.

It is somewhat ironic that so many people who helped so many other sectors disintermediate again (by building websites), are now busy actually intermediating their own.

<comment><USER46> The Web isn't. Sir TBL doesnt get a cut from your sales.

Why developers even use the app stores baffles me

97% of user's time is spent using the 10 top mobile apps

Average user downloads ~0 apps / month

PC sales are up last year and more this year with COVID

Who makes money?

<comment><USER47> Assuming your numbers are accurate, 3% of users time is spent on non-top-10 apps.

There are 3.5 billion smartphone users. [0] Smartphone usage statistics suggest that an average person spends 2 hours and 51 minutes per day on their mobile device. [1] This works out to a cumulative total of 3.6 trillion hours of use per year. 3% of that time is 109 billion hours a year in non-top-10 apps.

You might not become a millionaire with your app being part of the 3%, but there's still real money there.

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of- smartph...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone- users-worldwide/)

[1] [https://leftronic.com/smartphone-usage- statistics/](https://leftronic.com/smartphone-usage-statistics/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I also argue that it's the heavy commissions which push nearly every App to an ad based model, or physical services Apps which don't charge anything.

This in turn shifts more and more apps in the direction of invading our privacy with invasive ads libraries, leading to also worse privacy as a consequence. It's already pretty hard to convince users to pay for an app, the 30% cut almost guaranties it will be a bad business model.

</comment><comment><USER48> Amazon does the same thing. You can lose more on a return than you make on a regular order. Amazon makes more on many orders than sellers do.

<comment><USER49> Amazon FBA seller here. I came to look for the Amazon comment. Their returns are pretty messed up and hurt the sellers. Customer can return for any reason and the seller has to eat it. Often times it is very hard to track returns down if people return the wrong stuff. If it's broken or damaged, amazon will side with the customer 100% of the time. On top of all that, if you dispose of a damaged, non-sell-able item, they will list it in amazon warehouse, we agree to that in the TOS by having an FBA account.

If someone knows how to work with their system better regarding returns, let me know.

<comment><USER50> I stopped selling on Amazon nearly 10 years ago. FBA was a newly introduced feature which was the trigger for me see Amazon's disrespect for 3rd party sellers.

They skim the seller for the sale (because they do the marketing for you). They skim on payment processing (it costs them less than they charge) They skim for exposure (ads are almost a must have to ever appear in search results). They then skim on delivery via FBA (they charge more than it costs them). And they skim on warehousing via FBA (the pricing was already unbelievable back then).

Fast forward 10 years, they have started to skim sellers off their business analysis and risk taking effort (They have the data, and will compete with 3rd party sellers on products that sell decently enough, and even place their product before yours).

I've recently taken the time to edited and publish a book that is in the public domain, on their KDP platform, a few days later I see that Amazon is selling that same book and even redirect customer clicks from my page description and book cover to their line item to buy.

Amazon has no limit.

<comment><USER51> >a few days later I see that Amazon is selling that same book and even redirect customer clicks from my page description and book cover to their line item to buy.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Is Amazon redirecting direct links to your free book to a non-free version?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm a little stuck on the terminology here.

Does "customer refunds your paid app" mean the customer requests and gets a (full) refund from Apple for a prior app purchase?

(I would say "returns" not "refunds" ... Apple is the one refunding, not the customer. The customer receives the refund. But I guess this is some kind of regional/informal usage I'm not familiar with.)

If so, that's BS. Apple could reasonably keep transaction costs of something like 5%, but the full 30 is crazy.

<comment><USER53> As per the thread:

You buy an app for $10, Apple gets $3, the developer gets $7.

You refund the app (through the Apple App Store), you get your 10$ back, but that whole 10$ comes from the developer, unlike the 7/3 split when you first purchased it.

So in the end, the developer has lost money due to the refund.

<comment><USER42> This is just sales commission rules though.

If I get a 30% commission for a sale when the customer is referred by me and at some point in the future the customer asks for a refund I don't give my commission back. Our transaction was done when the original sale was made.

<comment><USER54> Apple doesn't refer a sale. Apple makes the sale. They are the store, something they have set up and enforced.

The developer has no capacity to deny a customer, yet has the responsibility for the bad customers shopping someone else's store.

<comment><USER55> Devils advocate argument: A refund (probably) reduces the LTV of customers, and Apple has no control of the cause of those refunds, whether it be a buggy app or misrepresenting features.

The ethics of this scheme are debatable but it should be assumed that some refunds are legitimate and Apple loses tangible customer $LTV from some refunds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I guess in Europe iStuff isn't as overwhelmingly popular as in USA, so when I hear things like that I am always amazed at how could anyone (a developer) in their mind ever cooperate with Apple. Even writing and getting a new app to their store is a huge feat, they take a huge cuts when you make money, and when you don't they can charge you "30% of what you could make" anyway. This is just absolute nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER32> So, they do have an incentive to let the iTunes fraud continue. Seems like a couple times a year one of my families accounts is hacked, they spend $100s and we have to dispute. We get the money back but it's costly to the devs at 30%

<comment><USER57> I would assume fraud would be fully refunded, no? This is more about legitimate Apple-sanctioned returns, not fraudulent transactions. I may be wrong, but I hope I'm not lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I don't understand something here.. let's say I sold an app to someone for $100.

1\. Someone pays me $100.

2\. Apple takes 30%, so I only get $70.

3\. Customer asks for refund and gets back $100.

4\. Apple takes back the $70 from me.

If Apple was skimming 30% off from the start, how does that affect me during a refund?

<comment><USER59> The tweet claims that step 4 is "Apples takes back $100 from me." So you have to cover Apple's share in the refund.

<comment><USER60> The tweets claim is false.

<comment><USER61> This is Apple's US terms for developers of paid apps:

> You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the > price for that subscription. Apple will have the right to retain its > commission on the sale of that subscription, notwithstanding the refund of > the price to the End-User.

If you disagree, please cite a source.

<comment><USER36> Apple says they have that right, but I have not seen them do it.

Here's apple deducting a refund from me in 2010, and the amount is exactly what they paid me. [https://imgur.com/a/KwKlMXh](https://imgur.com/a/KwKlMXh)

First screen shot is a week with one refund (-$1.40) and ten sales ($14.00 proceeds).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Purchase: Customer pays $10. Apple keeps $3. Developer gets $7

Refund should be: Developer has $7 deducted from current owed "royalties" Apple refunds $10 to the customer.

Is Apple actually taking $10 from the developer and giving it to the customer? That would be theft. The developer is not obligated to cover refunds beyond the profit/royalty they originally made on it.

<comment><USER63> > Is Apple actually taking $10 from the developer and giving it to the > customer?

That is exactly what is happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> It's not just Apple. Look at the state of business app stores: appExchange (Salesforce), Slack, Jira plugin marketplace,and so on. They are all milking as much as thry can.

</comment><comment><USER65> Add this to the long list of how the App Store doesn't serve the needs of application producers are their customers, and because the needs of these very important members of the app ecosystem aren't being served it really isn't serving Apple as well as it could either.

<comment><USER66> Their customers are not developers, never have been, and never will be.

We see what "serving developers" has done to the web in general - a genuine mess. Perhaps the fee is a bit much and the refund should come with a return, but as an apple product owner, I like the general experience of my iPhone and its app stores, and I don't want them to cater to devs over me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Not saying it's exactly the same situation, but Stripe keeps their fees when you refund a payment

<comment><USER68> It's not the same at all. Payment processing is work, regardless of direction. Marketing fees for non-sales is payment for nothing.

<comment><USER69> ....but Apple processes payments for App Store purchases? And they pay to maintain the store. Storage, bandwidth, updates, those are all "work" as well. I do think 30% is quite high, but this comment seems to consider Apple a charity house that should provide these services for free

<comment><USER70> Don't forget that Apple takes a yearly developer license. You're claiming that the 30% cut that they keep on a refund is used to cover payment processing (typically priced around 3%) and the marginal cost of the bandwidth to distribute that single copy of the app? Even for $0.99 apps that price is outrageously expensive. AWS, notorious for their high bandwidth pricing, costs ~2 cents per GB on S3. This is 33 cents for a dozen MB.

Nobody is saying Apple shouldn't get paid here, but keeping 30% is insane.

<comment><USER69> A product or service is worth what people will pay, not what it costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This blew up, but like 5 comments down in twitter someone said it wasn't true.

<comment><USER72> It is true, and I don't see anyone on that thread saying it's not. I see a guy confused about whether it's the consumer or developer that eats the fee - it's the developer.

This is exactly how it works:

* Customer pays $10

* Apple owes developer $7 (to be paid in 4-6 weeks)

* Customer asks for refund, Apple sends them $10 back

* Developer owes Apple $3

<comment><USER60> It's not true, I've been selling apps on the App Store fir ten years, never happened to me.

<comment><USER72> I believe the real answer is that they do keep it (at least sometimes) for chargebacks but not for regular refunds.

I've seen the discrepancy in our own accounting, and as mentioned elsewhere, it's in the App Store terms. But Apple's dashboard doesn't show a clear difference between chargeback and refund, and maybe that's where the story originated.

HN won't let me amend my comment above, but I stand by the claim that this happens on chargebacks. Otherwise the App Store Connect numbers don't add up.

I think the truth has some nuance, but that doesn't work on the internet, it's got to be either an outrageous story or "total fake news".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> People keep talking about 30% cut but it's actually more than that if you look outside of U.S.

Apple takes more than 30% cut for in-app purchases made in other countries. For example, an in-app-purchase (IAP) you sell in USD for $15.99 is translated to 1249 Indian Rupees and you get a proceed of 741 Rupees which is only 59%. So Apple keeps the rest 41%. Today's (when I wrote this) exchange rate shows approx. 76 rupees for 1 USD so the amount they charge the user is pretty accurate but Apple put so much wiggle room in their favor. This is true for other currencies as well.

</comment><comment><USER74> It's a mess. In many ways, the App Store is nothing but trouble for developers.

</comment><comment><USER75> This is unfortunate. I recently searched the App Store for "ssh tunnel" and Prompt 2 came up. I bought it without much thought as I heard about.

Now I should have done my research but it doesn't support tunneling or I couldn't figure out. Some research told me that no iOS ssh client will. So I requested a refund and got it.

In this case I think the blame was on Apple. Not the author of the app.

<comment><USER76> I don't know how you can blame either party.

If my kid wants a dvd about beetles (the bugs), and I click on a Beatles (the band) documentary instead, that's neither the seller or producers fault.

<comment><USER77> It's Apple's fault that they made a standard ssh feature impossible on ios, yet still allow apps to be called "ssh".

No dvd player manufacturer created a dvd store where they sell dvds called "The Beatles" but every Beatles dvd is missing Ringo because their dvd store censors Ringo, but dvds are still named The Beatles.

<comment><USER76> So are you angry at the platform restrictions or the App Store?

They are two different things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> This policy apparently has been around since 2009: [https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/app-store- refunds...](https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/app-store-refunds-will- not-bankrupt-developers.ars)

Of note is that the developer "protection" clause in the 2009 version doesn't seem to be in the current version ("Otherwise, no refunds are available."): [https://www.apple.com/legal/internet- services/itunes/us/term...](https://www.apple.com/legal/internet- services/itunes/us/terms.html)

My memory is fuzzy, but I recall there was pressure from the EU? regarding lack of refunds, so I'm guessing this was Apple's adaptation.

Regardless, it still clearly seems like the right thing to do is to refund the developer the 30%.

</comment><comment><USER79> According to the tweet, if a $1.00 app is refunded the customer gets back $1.00 from the developer and Apple keeps $0.30.

So each refund costs the dev more than they took in for the sale whilst Apple always pockets the 30%.

How can a refund cost the dev $1.00 if they only took $0.70 for the sale?

</comment><comment><USER80> From the perspective of an iPhone user, Apple does a reasonable job of keeping nefarious apps out of the app store (not prefect, maybe not even great, but reasonable). Most apps that have a set price and not a subscription are reasonably priced and one does not feel/notice that Apple takes a 30% cut. The end user experience is reasonable.

I feel like getting rid of the app store, or even just allowing side loading, would open users up to a lot of nefarious software.

If we assume that consumers like the App store and that its not going away, how do we satisfy developers but allow consumers the comfort of the walled garden?

</comment><comment><USER81> I don't think the issue is that Apple is keeping its fee even with a return. That on some level is fair. They are providing a service to the developer.

The bigger question is whether their cut should be 30% in the first place.

30% was chosen by the first store of this type and it's just never been questioned by platforms. I just read that Valve recently changed their agreement to be a sliding scale based on sales (30% to start, falling to 20% if you hit certain numbers).

But as far as I know, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and Google all do a 30/70 split on digital sales.

<comment><USER68> > all do a 30/70 split on digital sales.

Consistency which is only possible in an environment of collusion.

<comment><USER82> Not as much collusion as simply lack of competition.

You don't have any other options for most of their respective platform and there isn't enough incentive to compete on the pricing.

Also even when there is competition there are rules that prevent you from lowering pricing in one store vs the other (there are some exceptions) so if you end up say selling a game on the PC and you set the retail price as $60 and you launch it on 3 different digital content distribution platforms while you might make more money on one platform than the other there is no difference for the end consumer so there isn't an actual competitive incentive to reduce your cut as a digital distributor unless you think you can get an exclusivity deal.

<comment><USER81> Yeah, I wouldn't call it out and out collusion.

If the first store did 20%, it's likely all the stores would have followed suit on that price point.

30% is likely the most they can take that people will tolerate.

<comment><USER83> They could take 70% or 95% and there will still be posts saying that the market is 3.5 billion people and 5% isn't bad because Apple/Google do all of the marketing.

<comment><USER50> Please, be careful throwing this kind of idea out there, people at Apple/Google, who obviously have run out of ideas long ago, may be reading this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I have mixed feelings about this and understand there are cases where it is unfair and where it is a fair penalty.

I see the case where your child spend money via an in-app purchase in Roblox. Where The kid buys USD 1k in robux and the Roblox app never complain... Where we are using two factor authentication and all kind of measures to protect credit card purchases. So, I think you can blame Roblox or Apple for not adding these measures. This is like a dark pattern hidden in the "frictionless" payments via apps.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like the original tweet may be incorrect according to replies on there, or at least this doesn't apply to every app, for example: [https://mobile.twitter.com/LittleFinLLC/status/1288570444417...](https://mobile.twitter.com/LittleFinLLC/status/1288570444417728518)

Would be great if others could chime in with their experience if they have records to check!

My apologies for posting this if it proves to be incorrect, hard one to fact check weirdly.

<comment><USER36> The last time this came up, in 2009, I looked at my reports and concluded the same thing- when Apple reported a refund, they were deducting 70% of a sale from my future earnings, not 100%

<comment><USER36> This topic is generating enough heat that I went trolling through my old reports.

Apple appears to be deducting just the 70% from earnings, not the full 100%. [https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh](https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Tim Sweeney @TimSweeneyEpic

This is a critical consideration in these 30% store fees. They come off the top, before funding any developer costs. As a result, Apple and Google make more profit from most developers' games than the developers themselves. That is terribly unfair and exploitative.

[https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128831577560707891...](https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1288315775607078912)

</comment><comment><USER86> Nobody seems to be taking this to the logical conclusion. If Apple's behavior is not desirable, then don't build apps for the Apple app store. They're apparently providing enough value in giving developers access to premium customers that this aggressive behavior is worth the trade-off for many developers.

<comment><USER87> Apple's app store provides value to developers and customers because it is the only method of delivering apps to iphones. If there were other app stores that charged 20% less for the apps, then developers and customers would use those.

See Steam vs. Windows Store vs. Epic Games store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> > When a customer refunds your paid app...

(nitpick) The use of the verb "refund" seems confusingly wrong in this sentence. Neither the customer nor the paid app is paying back any money. I know it's Twitter, but it'd make a lot more sense to say "When Apple refunds a customer of your paid app..."

</comment><comment><USER89> Tweet can be accessed from [https://web.archive.org/web/20200729052623/https://twitter.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200729052623/https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288344977169235968)

</comment><comment><USER90> Can you buy and refund and buy and refund the same app multiple times? Can you use this to ruin your competition?

</comment><comment><USER91> One more reason for society as a whole to get rid of greedy tech monsters dependency like Apple in long term.

Remember You often have a choice to not support this platform and move towards web by default even if it is not easy (Apple enforce to use their web engine to make sure you are in a slave position on iOS)

</comment><comment><USER60> This isn't true. Source: me, I'm a developer who has been giving customers refund instructions fir ten years.

</comment><comment><USER92> They should refund half of the 30% to pay for their costs and whatever, like a handling service. Unfortunately that still means the seller is paying for returns, but Apple probably is legally required in most countries to refund the buyer fully, what do I know.

</comment><comment><USER93> Of note: as of last October, if a PayPal merchant refunds a customer for any reason, PayPal is no longer refunding their payment processing fee. The merchant will need to refund that to the customer at their own expense to grant the customer a full refund.

</comment><comment><USER94> A fair and equitable App Store model that also protects users would be one where it's opt-in. Apple vetting an app should be independent of distribution. Developers can then choose whether they want to use the App Store or not.

</comment><comment><USER95> This probably lower incentives for App devs to create refund situations. For example you attempt to get people to download your app by misrepresenting it. Most will not get refunds, and the Dev gains from such behaviour.

</comment><comment><USER96> "Sorry, we already spent it."

</comment><comment><USER97> Stripe started doing this as well, as of a few months ago. Makes it tougher to be generous with refunds for people, knowing that we literally lose money doing so.

Fortunately their cut isn't the massive 30% that Apple takes.

</comment><comment><USER98> The "cost" of refunding a $9.99 app is the same as the "cost" of refunding a $0.99 app. Sure, let them keep _some_ amount for payment processing but it should be a constant.

</comment><comment><USER99> PWA web app needs a store to be the distributor for small web apps, making it easier for small developers to monetize more than just ads. Where is Mozilla, MS, Google, Amazon?

</comment><comment><USER100> The tweet is now deleted. What happened to the dial a mob?

</comment><comment><USER101> How does it work in other stores? Like Google Play, Steam, Microsoft Store, Playstation / Xbox / Nintendo / Switch stores? Do they keep it?

</comment><comment><USER102> What happens if I send somebody money with PayPal/cash app but then reverse/undo the transaction? Are the fees kept?

<comment><USER57> Most likely, but the fees are more like 30p + 2.9% (atleast in the UK, on PayPal) or something similar, which on a 99p app would be 30%, but on a $15 app it's obviously nowhere near 30%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Why is it we don't tax these companies in the same way. 30% on all income in the country where the good/service was sold

</comment><comment><USER104> Wait so.

I buy your app. You get $7 and Apple gets $3.

I refund your app and get $10 back. Is Apple taking $10 from the developer to give to me?

This smells positively rotten.

<comment><USER36> It's not true, as far as I can tell from my reports.

Apple appears to be deducting just the 70% from earnings, not the full 100%. [https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh](https://imgur.com/gallery/KwKlMXh)

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Not surprising, since they have control of the platform and the market. But it's ethically questionable.

</comment><comment><USER28> Previous story from 2009: [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/03/app-store- refunds-wi...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/03/app-store-refunds-will- not-bankrupt-developers/)

</comment><comment><USER106> Dig a little deeper in the thread. I don't think this is accurate.

</comment><comment><USER107> This is Apple exploiting it near monopoly powers, plain and simple.

</comment><comment><USER108> How come all the best tweets get deleted? C'mon

</comment><comment><USER109> "When you refund a customer in full, for an app they _returned_ , Apple doesn't refund you the 30% cut" ... ?

</comment><comment><USER110> HNers don't seem very critical of Apple here. Imagine if Microsoft did the same, all hell would break loose.

</comment><comment><USER111> That doesn't seem fair at all

</comment><comment><USER112> This is simply not true.

</comment><comment><USER113> What the hell?

</comment><comment><USER18> This isn't correct at all.

This is a serious misunderstanding by someone in a pretty incredible way. Literally a single person claiming this and _multiple_ people refuting it from their own experience.

Yet it's top of HN. Amazing. A lesson to never, ever trust anything here because the masses clicked an arrow.

<comment><USER114> > A lesson to never, ever trust anything here

FWIW, it's been corrected in less than 18 hours.

Conclusion: You can continue to blindly trust everything here (provided you check a day later)

;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Of all the chatter around anti-trust, has anyone broached the app store and apple's monopoly on iOS software?

I am using the term in a colloiquial, non-legalistic sense.

My fear is that politicians are invested in tech stocks, like the rest of us and pretty much anyone with a mutual fund, so they are unlikely to act in a pro-consumer manner.

</comment><comment><USER116> Apple is taking a cut for providing the store itself, distribution, visibility, SDKs/frameworks, etc. Why would they refund 30%?

<comment><USER117> _Why would they refund 30%?_

Because they can afford it, and it's the right thing to do both ethically and morally.

<comment><USER116> Why is it the right thing to do morally and ethically? Didn't they earn that money?

<comment><USER117> If you went and bought a new car for $50,000 and then needed to return it and get a refund you wouldn't be very happy if the dealer gave you $45,000 back and said "Sorry, the salesperson gets to keep their commission. They earned that money." The dealer wouldn't be very happy if the salesperson said "No, I'm keeping my $5,000. I did my part and I earned that money." If there's a refund then _everyone_ gives their part of the money back.

Apple were part of the transaction, so if there's a refund they should return the money they earned. They can't just ignore the customer's wishes to get the money back, and they can't just pass the loss on to the developer. Neither would be fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> Seems fair to me. Apple provided with you a service and charged your for it. It is a cost associated with distributing / developing your product. Why should Apple be responsible for refunding you? It was not their fault that the customer decided their money back.

<comment><USER96> Apple prices the exact same things into hardware distribution too, but when you ask for your money back there they give it back in full, not minus the "service" they already provided you.

<comment><USER118> And I think that's great! I just don't think they need to be forced to do it. If I were Apple I would definitely refund. But I don't agree that it should be an obligation for them to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> Well yeah, I still need to pay shipping for amazon to send me a product even if I need to return it because it's broken. I would have no product to return if I did not pay for the shipping to receive the product.

Apple would justify that 30% being non-refundable by saying "you would have never had that client to refund if you did not give us that 30%". They did their job, they got you the client, you were the one who did the bad job and made the client pursue a refund.

You pay a toll to cross a bridge, but it turns out to be the wrong bridge. You don't get your toll back, you still crossed the bridge.

<comment><USER120> Except apple's marginal cost like 0.

<comment><USER121> Marginal cost is often not a good way to evaluate things.

A person who focuses only on marginal cost will say "It only took you an hour to make that" while discounting the decades of training it took to be able to.

A person who focuses only on marginal cost will say "I could have made this at home" while discounting the reasons why they didn't.

Prices relate to provided value, not just cost.

<comment><USER68> How much value is provided for a refund?

<comment><USER121> The amount refunded minus the continuing value to the user of the returned product (absent the value already extracted from the product by the user), of course.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Big Oil Companies targeted by Chinese Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.technology-digital.com/sectors/online/big-oil-companies-targeted-chinese-hackers

<comment><USER2> The picture in the article is absolutely unrelated.</comment>


CERN reports first evidence for process that could lead to new physics - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-07-cern-evidence-ultra-rare-physics.html <comment><USER2> Dang, who else was hoping for an announcement that they'd discovered a super symmetric partner particle, or something?</comment>