Readmore

So opensource it all right now. If Fusion Garage plans to sell it on their own anyway then release all the specs and software so that anyone can build one themselves.

That is a great point, although there are some things you can do with local caching it's not really a solution in that instance.

My main argument is, as a developer you KNOW what the App store approval process is like, it's been beaten to death all over the Internet. So either accept that you're going to have to play by Apple's rules or make a web app and save yourself the trouble. It's Apple's garden and we all just play in it.

The authors assertion that 'web APIs' can make desktop apps a replacement for web apps doesn't make any sense. Without the web app their are no APIs, Tweetie may be a great app but it can't function without Twitter.

The power of web apps is in the interoperability and reach. The fact that I can access an app with a desktop interface, or through a browser, or on my phone, or on another browser is what makes web apps 'win'.

A Desktop app using 'web apis' is just an extension of a successful web app, but that's fine, it's all about building the right on-ramp for your users. Whatever gets them using the app is the right answer. But whether you're accessing it through a browser or native interface the web has won, there is no refuting that.

Usually I like cringley but he's lost it this time.

"It wasn’t always so, but now we have Java and Java extensions in the browser, so the UI capabilities are much better." - WTF?

"Google will make tons of money from its app store. Remember that unapproved applications won’t be able to run on the Chrome OS and the best (maybe only) way to find approved apps will be through a Google store as pioneered by Apple with iTunes." - The 'App Store' is just a list of Web Apps, Google isn't going to make anything off of user accessing web apps through ChromeOS, just like Firefox doesn't make any money when users access Google Docs.

I disagree, I still think the first article was spot on. If you don't want to play by Apple's crappy App Store rules then write a web app for the iPhone. Unless you're doing a 3D game you can accomplish the same result on the Web and you're free from their 'control'.

iPhone devs who write native apps and then complain to Apple about the app store policies are stupid, because they are tilting at windmills when there is a much easier solution to the problem.

I believe that you actually missed the point of the article. The point was, quit whining because no one cares about your app.

I would tend to agree with you if you're only thinking about the US but 3rd world countries are a totally different ballgame.

There was a Nokia video out last week about the year 2015 and what mobile would look like at that point. While none of it was revolutionary what struck me the most was the thought that BILLIONS of people are going to begin making the kind of money necessary to get a smartphone in the next decade. Those 'phones' are going to be their only computer, their only access to the internet, and their only device that would allow application development.

If we, using the royal hacker we, could develop a mobile or web-based development environment that worked on mobile devices it could enable a new population of developers that dwarfs the number of devs we have in the world now. I would be surprised if the number of mobile applications developed on mobile devices was extremely high in the 3rd world in the next decade.

I don't know, that sounds like a Monarchy to me.

If you wanted to go that way why not make a user's 'voting power' be based on their own karma / time on the site. This rewards users who have been around longer and have been 'peer reviewed' through their karma.

I'm starting to feel like this advice isn't so great anymore.

Everyone is trying to do less and what we end up with is a million little apps that do one thing really well, which is great, but you're still dealing with a million separate apps. The iPhone wasn't just a really great phone, it was a phone, an iPod, and an 'Internet Communicator' but because those things were combined in such a great package it really spoke to people and made it something they would want. Of course the App Store is what is driving the popularity now but that is still because customers can come to one place, the iPhone, and get tons of different uses out of their one device.

I think we're starting to enter an era where users are more interested in packages of functionality that are easy to use and work really well over a bunch of tiny solutions.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that I prefer products/applications that let me do lots of things reasonably well in one place instead of getting the 'perfect' thing for each problem I have.

What do you think?

I think it's an interesting idea. Is it just a straight list of the latest videos posted to twitter or are you grouping them based on the number of tweets, retweets, etc?

My product is disruptive and goes beyond Netflix/Amazon streaming. It's most easily described as a web based evolution of XBMC. The goal is to make it dead simple to pull in and organize online video as well as locally stored video. As a user you shouldn't have to know what online site streams the show you want, or check different services to see who has the movie you want to see. It should all be presented in one easy to navigate interface.

My goal is to develop an online site along with a consumer device that integrate together. The best way to do this would be through a licensing deal with set-top box makers. Take the Netflix strategy of putting the service on every available device instead of solely focusing on selling a box a la Tivo.

"“The parties were unanimous in their wish that more of the experience be away from the computer,” Mr. Gould said. “People are expecting and really preferring a simpler, more straightforward experience that doesn’t involve the PC,” he said."

This is great news for my next project ;)

Happy Birthday Trevor!

I'm so sick of this crap. This must be what it was like for Microsoft when everyone hated them just because they were on top.

The iPhone has already won, give up the 'iPhone sucks' posts already. Or try to use it outside of NY and SF and realize that the call quality actually isn't bad, the reception doesn't suck, and you can make a call whenever you want.

GO STEVE GO!

Hahha WTF? That is a very interesting... and head-scratching contest indeed.

Great work on the add-ons! It's great to see how quickly you moved this out of Beta.

Doesn't seem real to me...

I actually tried to use iPods to drive traffic to a site of mine a couple years ago. It didn't work very well but I think the reason was that I didn't make them do enough to get the prize. Just make sure that 5 new reviews on your site is going to create enough value for you to warrant the cost of the iPod.

Without knowing anything about your business I would suggest that you look at some of the Minimum Viable Product ideas for customer development. Smart use of Google ads could go a lot further than an iPod giveaway.

just my two cents.

Isn't it more that Russia sucked at sending things to Mars? The US definitely had some failures too but most of the failed missions are on the Soviet Union.

Because Apple hardware launches qualify as news that Hackers enjoy.

It's an cool concept but I'm afraid I don't understand how it works.

Sorry, I just linked to the article where I found it.

then I would not hire you.

These guys are awesome! I'll definitely check out the 'pay-in' beta ;)

While I share a lot of respect for game devs I'm curious about this quote from the article.... What do you mean by "While web developers have been whining for years and have been stuck in their despair"

I love it, great idea.

That's a good explanation, thanks.

The last few charts are the most telling. The majority of free sites reported $1-$5 in monthly revenue but the majority of subscription sites reported $1000-$5000 a month.

I'm up-voting this article just because it's aimed at Zed ;)