Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Publishers (Score 1) 567

by JohnG (#40102657) Attached to: New Music Boss, Worse Than Old Music Boss
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.

Comment: Re:They still don't get it. (Score 1) 663

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.

Comment: Re:oh my word (Score 1) 231

by JohnG (#39441679) Attached to: The Sounds of Tech Past
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.

Comment: Agency model not new. (Score 1) 352

by JohnG (#39291883) Attached to: Publishers Warned On Ebook Prices
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.

Comment: Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (Score 1) 71

by JohnG (#38854951) Attached to: Facebook, Washington State Sue Firm Over Clickjacking

I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.

You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.

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.

Comment: Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (Score 1) 71

by JohnG (#38854609) Attached to: Facebook, Washington State Sue Firm Over Clickjacking
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.

Comment: Re:Who Watches the Coastguard? (Score 1) 71

by JohnG (#38854087) Attached to: Facebook, Washington State Sue Firm Over Clickjacking

In fifteen years, we're not going to have D's and R's in congress any more, but not because things will have improved. Instead, we're going to have the whomever the hell Mark Zuckerberg feels like keeping drunk party pictures under wraps for party...

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.

Comment: Android Market Problems (Score 5, Interesting) 614

by JohnG (#38390894) Attached to: Why Developers Still Prefer iOS To Android
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?

Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries

Working...