if you live in a society where rich men can have many wives so there's less women to go around, female infanticide is ripe, and your economy sucks so you can't get a job: no woman will look at you

you have no pornography, women are wrapped up and hidden from sight

your corrupt broken government censors the internet

so you have no outlet for your sexuality

none. zero

this is extremely unnatural

and this is what fuels all the suffering and hatred in conservative societies and with men from conservative backgrounds: a young man with no options to express his natural biological desires turns to the worst choices in life: murder and psychopathy

meanwhile, in "decadent", "immoral" societies, where expression of natural human sexuality is easy, young men and women are productive, happy and content

the greatest creator of evil in this world is traditional religion

yes

because conservative countries that disallow expression of sexuality, and also disallow censor pornography, create murderous assholes and bitter hatemongers

so allowing sexuality is best, but allowing pornography is second best

blocking both creates hellholes of human suffering. that's religious conservative "morals" at work

 

the more conservative the area of the country (and the world) the more online pornography is consumed:

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

pointlessly uptight people still need their biological release, and since their bullshit "morals" don't allow them to express their natural proclivities in real life, they're all closet perverts

so southerners need that fiber, they won't oppose it

And his photography.

RIP. Sad sad sad.

you're not an intelligent person. you should stop talking about what you can't understand

Right. Because people who write complex business applications should also write the compiler, OS, network drivers, and so on, in monolithic one-off projects. That's probably a better way than to break things up and have people focus on smaller-scoped, reusable components. I'm pretty sure Mao tried something like that with the whole economy.

If you have a large enough market, the simplicity and repeatability of dedicated controllers with buttons chosen precisely for your game's design and so on is attractive.

If you don't, you run into the problem that low volume production of such gear isn't going to make the price point any more attractive, and it's fairly bulky and expensive for something you can only play a few games with.

Anyone know what the feasibility might be of, instead, of taking advantage of what is already available? For mics, the attempt to make voice control a fad left a fair number of consoles already equipped with one, cellphones and tablets all have them and support wired or wireless headsets, and USB mics of unexceptional quality cover everyone else for not much money. On the guitar side, probably-awful 'beginner' units are $60-80(probably less if you get one used after buyer's remorse claims the original victim), and essentially any electric guitar will support putting out a low-level signal into a 1/4inch jack. If a device already has a line in, a simple mechanical adapter will do, if not, cables that are a USB audio-in on one end, 1/4inch jack on the other are quite cheap. Once you had that, your game could presumably crunch the guitar's output and (depending on how much 'game' and how much 'learning tool' you want) do anything from treating a few large contact areas as 'buttons' to actually grading you on the degree to which your results match the correct output.

I doubt that, if the user needs to purchase everything, particularly new, you could beat the package cost of a mass-produced controller pack; but if you don't think that you have the volume for a suitable production run of instrument-controllers, it seems like an approach that has very low marginal cost and can work with more or less any instrument floating around in the wild, might be less risky and more approachable.

The same thing that happened to the time when the only tool you needed was a rock: Cumulative technological progress.

It comes down to the quality of the solution, versus the added headaches of managing dependencies. It's not a religious issue, but one of experience and engineering. It's also a good idea to make sure that if you're inventing something that someone else might eventually provide, you at least loosely couple it, so it can be swapped out later.

With those thoughts in mind, don't get stuck in analysis paralysis. Use judgment and move on.

Given that China has historically been the nominally-communist-but-attractively-cheap-and-open-for-business destination, they can't be entirely surprised that Vietnam is now cutting into their action.

That aside, though, I wonder if this is more or less purely cost focused, or whether the quasi-mercantalist Chinese government policies aimed at aiding domestic firms and speeding up acquisition of foreign firms' tech has a bigger role? They aren't necessarily irrational, given that competing on price and low environmental standards isn't exactly a fun game, even when you are winning it; but such policies presumably do encourage foreign firms to head for the exit more quickly at the same time as they reduce the impact of their doing so.

There are far, far more Android users, so even if each one spends less that doesn't mean you will make less money in the long run. Also, if you are developing apps for developing nations, good luck selling many copies on iOS.

Unfortunately we don't have stats broken down by country. I bet they would paint a very different picture though.

Your first link also shows that 90% of iOS apps are free. Clearly most developers think the right price for their apps is $0.

You are also missing the fact that while on average Android user spend less, there are a lot more of them. The ones in developing countries probably drag the numbers down a lot. It would be interesting to see stats for just Europe, say. Also, those developing nations are only going to spend more and more over time, which is why Apple is desperately trying to break into China.

Apple actively encouraged developers to target specific resolutions, especially in the early days when the hardware was quite weak. In order for everything to look good they told developers to create graphics for the iPhone and later iPad's specific resolution.

That's why when later models with better screens came out they preferred to exactly doubled the resolution when possible. All those apps written for the old resolution then at least scaled 2:1 and only looked as bad as they did on the old low resolution screens. When widescreen finally came along they letterboxed apps because so many of them didn't scale properly.

It's all because the original iPhone and iPad hardware was pretty low end, so in order to make everything move smoothly and apps look slick they went with monotasking and UIs developed for specific screens. Don't forget that the 1st gen hardware was a Samsung single core CPU running at 400MHz with a mere 128MB of RAM.

Android went with device and resolution independence from day one, and although that meant that early devices were a bit clunky compared to iOS it has paid off in the long run.

CR was also useful for double-printing. When you ribbon was worn out you could just rewind it and re-use it, but have the printer overwrite every line so each character was printed twice, giving you about 80% as much ink as a new ribbon would provide.