No you didn't fix it. He said profits, not income. Unless you think that the record companies are getting 100% of the money from iTunes sales, or that record stores sell records out of the kindness of their own hearts, and pass 100% of the sales price back to the labels. It amazes me how many people complain about Apple's 30%, as if it is the worst thing to happen to the industry, when it actually it is better than the amount gotten back from brick and mortar stores. As a software developer, I am much happier with my 70% of the pie than I would be if I had to go through separate publishing, distribution, and sales channels and be lucky to get 10-15% off of my work.

Many people refer to their cars as 'she' as well. They also give them names. Do you think they are going to ask their car on a date? That being said, do you have an actual response to what I said?

Siri seems to do a good job of it. The article isn't about someone asking her, "smart phone best?"

This argument becomes less convincing when you consider how many people pirate mobile apps. It's far more convenient to just pay your $0.99 and get the app from an official outlet than it is to pirate it. But there is still plenty of piracy. I don't think you can make the argument that people can't afford $0.99, or that (most) mobile software isn't worth less than the cost of a soda. I'm not saying that I've never pirated anything in my life. Most of the time it's because I can't afford it. Sometimes it's because I want to see a movie but don't have a car and can't get to theaters. But I do not represent everyone who does this sort of thing, and neither do you. Some people are just dirt cheap. And defending all of them based on your rationale for doing something isn't really helpful. Changes in the way companies think is going to come form open, HONEST, discussion. It seems that neither side is willing to do that, and both sides are simply pointing fingers at one another.

When I read the article, it was 7 pages. 2 on the first page and then 3 on the remaining 6 pages. I'm assuming you read the whole thing since you made it to the mimeograph machine, so maybe they changed it since you did. Still kind of annoying, but not as bad as you made it out to be. Also, unless he records all of the sounds himself, he's kinda stuck dealing with whatever he can find out youtube. Although I will give you the mimeograph one, it was hard to hear the machine over the music, so that one should have been omitted.

The Justice Dept. is suing Apple and publishers over the agency model, claiming that it keeps prices artificially high. However, app stores have been using the agency model since the iPhone came out, and mobile software has never been cheaper. Any time indies are allowed to enter a market and set realistic prices, prices over all will eventually drop. If there was any basis at all for this lawsuit then it would still cost me $5 to get Monopoly on my mobile phone.

If you think that homosexuals were accepted as well 70 years ago as they are today then I am not the one with revisionist history. The key word in social media is media. In your grandparents day, that would have been radio and early television. I don't see a lot of openly gay characters on the Dick Van Dyke show or I Love Lucy. As society changed, they began to appear in media. The younger generation grew up with more exposure to it, so it wasn't as big of a deal. The new youth is going to grow up with differing views of privacy than we had. Facebook won't be a NEW concept to them. This notion of having all of your pictures shown to anyone won't be something that they have to come to terms with, or learn to deal with. It will be something that they already have come to terms with and already have learned to deal with.

And if the majority of your acquaintances are running around shunning people because they wear the wrong color or sing off key, then it's your world that I question. Not mine. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure, I guess. But only among the infinitely small minded, and only on issues that don't really matter to anything, such as who is going to win the next episode of whatever flavor of the month reality show is on at the time.

Scandalous photos aren't new, but social networks that make them a click away are. In order to see my grandparents drunken party photos, I would have had to sneak into their bedroom, rifle through their closet, and rummage through a stack of printed photos. As people's craziness becomes more and more exposed to the public eye, it will become more of a non-issue. If you don't believe me, go back in time and ask your grandparents how they feel about gays getting married, couples living together out of wedlock, or any other activity that was once never talked about and is now common place.

Either that, or the next generation, having grown up around social media, will realize that everyone has drunken party pics or embarrassing costume party pics, or what have you and it will no longer be an issue.

I tried to read all of the posts to see if someone else mentioned it, but didn't see one that did. Aside from the problems with Google Checkout not being widespread, there is a huge problem with the functionality of the market. At least once a month I get an email from someone that says they bought my app but the download would not complete. They demand their money back from me. This is annoying for two reasons. One, it is entirely possible that their order was never charged. If you look over your checkout account, there are several attempted purchases every single day that didn't go through. It happened to a friend of mine that tried to purchase one of my apps, and I know there was money on his debit card. This is a lot of money in lost sales. The second reason it is annoying is because I am being wrongly blamed for Google's incompetence. When customers complain to me that an app they purchased wasn't downloaded, it is the equivalent of buying a PS3 off of Amazon and complaining to Sony that Amazon never shipped it. I've never once gotten a support email from an iOS user about the same issue. And over a two year period there have been dozens from Android users. Google also has MUCH less developer support than Apple does. They simply do not care about us or our opinions. Period. They seem to view the market as an after thought as well. Why should I make them my primary platform under those circumstances?

Speaking as an iPhone, Android developer who looked into Blackberry, I can say that there was that fee. The $200 "bought" you 10 app reviews. After that you had to spend another $200 to get another 10 reviews. The same can be said of feature phone makers like Nokia that, until recently, required you to have 3rd party signing that costs quite a bit of money while Apple and Google where doing it for free. But in the end, Blackberry still relies heavily on J2ME. They extended the platform enough to be a smart phone years ago. In fact, to practically invent the term. But they have been surpassed and failed to keep up with the times. The days when cell phone software went for $4.99 have came and gone. It is sad for developers. But RIM and feature phone makers adapted very slowly to taking the initial investment out of creating apps. And in the process they were surpassed in profitability by app stores with a smaller barrier to entry. I'm not going to pay more to make less. You either roll with the punches or you get knocked out by them. Nokia offers free signing now, and Blackberry is now free as well. The difference is that J2ME is still fine for feature phone development. Blackberry needs to give developers closer access to the metal, and to provide a much higher level of development tools than they are currently offering if they want to remain a smart phone competitor. As it is now, they are sort of the bridge between feature phones and smart phones. QNX was a good start, forcing us to develop in Actionscript was a bad lead off to that good start.

Well, as a developer with apps on both markets, last year's thinking is reflected in last month's sales reports. And Angry Birds is still at the top of the charts. Do you have any market data to back up your claims?

Getting developers to Android tablets isn't just a matter of getting more units out there than iPad. There are already more Android phones out there than iPhones, but there is still more money to be made on the iPhone than on Android. What Android needs to do is get the type of users that are willing to pay for apps. iPhone users pay for apps. Even Rovio didn't want to release Angry Birds on Android because they didn't think enough Android users would be willing to pay for it. Maybe Rovio can afford to support themselves on ad revenue, but the average developer is going to have it much harder.

I am stuck with Hughesnet, due to living in the boonies. They impose a 425 megabyte limit on my downloads even at the $100 a month plan. The only time it is unlimited is between 2am-7am, which I'm betting isn't enough time to grab an entire OSX distribution. Just getting XCode and the iOS SDK became a race against time once the file hit the 4gb range. I guess I can stay up until 2, then set an alarm for 7 to pause the Mac App Store download until 2 am the next morning. But still, I'd really like to just pay a few extra bucks and have them ship me a DVD. It doesn't even have to come in a fancy box.

The Android Market in general is pretty broken because of the lack of even a rudimentary review process. The other day I was looking at the new releases in the Sports Games category and there were about 5 or 6 pirated ebooks of Harry Potter, the Twilight Series and several others. Needles to say, this is not only illegal, it's in the wrong category. This has been a problem in the market since its inception and Google still has yet to do anything about it. If they are unwilling to have someone at least look over the titles and categories that an app is placed in before allowing it on the market, in order to cut back on massive copyright and trademark violations and make browsing the store by category possible, why do we think they'll take any preemptive strike against malware? Google doesn't even give Android developers a convenient way to contact them. It seems to me that they wanted the Android Market to be a set it and forget it kinda thing. Will the negatively publicity form the malware for them to change that stance? I doubt it.