Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more jkchu's commentslogin

Yeah definitely, from reading the article it sounds like they just want the freedom to do what they want to do (and that likely could come with bonus income). The article mentions the programmer's wife is an optometrist and is still working actually.


You do bring up an interesting point. Apple's (expected?) responsibility here is to protect their users from malicious apps on their devices. It does seem reasonable for me what they are doing, but of course if they were to lose sight of their users' best interests, then this could become problematic. However, I think for issues like that we need to just trust the market to correct for that. If Apple were to destroy user trust, then I would not doubt that people would flock to their competitors (Google, Samsung, etc).


As long as the loot boxes are for cosmetics and are not deceptive in any way, I have no issue with games including them.


It's explicitly not a subscription because you can still play the game without purchasing the additional expansions. I have played Destiny 2 consistently since it was released for PC, but I play it almost exclusively for PvP (Crucible). I can continue to play PvP without purchasing the new expansions. The main difference is that I won't always be able to unlock some of the new guns (which is fine by me).


I'm not saying there aren't perceivable advantages to the current business model, just that it isn't a business model that seems to be working for me personally. I stopped playing both D1 and D2 at about the same point where an expansion came out that I wasn't interested in, and I couldn't ignore the paywall. Partly because yes more of the lore and PvE is paywalled than the PvP is.


I would have preferred AWS D2B.


My brain keeps trying to parse this into either DB2 or some Star Wars reference (R2DB, RD2B, etc.)


I'm guessing if you would have included this reasoning in your original comment, then it wouldn't have been downvoted.


I totally agree with you. And to add to your point, the impact of having a dominance in the market of "personal project repos" extends far beyond individual developers paying money on their personal accounts and/or becoming paying customers when they start their own companies.

If you think about mid-sized software companies (~10-100 devs), if 80% of your developers have a strong preference for Github over Gitlab or Bitbucket, then that company is likely going to stick with Github or decide to move to Github eventually. I think this is where Github captures much more than that 12% revenue that they are giving up right now.


Also, if the VP of Eng. or whoever is making the decision thinks of Github as the default git SaaS because it's what they have used since college, there's a good chance they will just go with Github without even evaluating alternatives.


I am confused by this sentiment. Wouldn't moving to another product (like bitbucket or gitlab) put you in the same boat (since they also offer free private repositories)?


GitLab's free private repos have the same feature set as their public ones. Not so with GitHub's, and this blog post hides that fact.

https://github.com/pricing#feature-comparison


Not quite.

https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/

The free tier is the functionality you get for private repos. Public (not internal) repos get Gold capabilities.

Runner limits can be eliminated if you host your own runner to hook in to.

The above is specifically for GitLab.com hosting. Self-hosted is a different story with features.


Ah hah - true. Thanks!


Thanks for sharing this detail with everyone.


A native app with no server backend is the same as a web application with no server backend. In that case you really just need to put those static web files into an S3 bucket and route a domain to it. The cost is very low for this.


Athough localstorage exists, I'd be very hesitant to store anything important/permanent there. So your no server web app will be pretty limited.


In the article they mentions that they combine 5 different layers of plastic to allow the k-cups to keep the coffee inside fresh. I believe this makes the plastic non-recyclable


The article is from 2015. The plastic for certain cups (see: https://www.keurig.com/recyclable ) is recyclable as of earlier this year, and all k-cups are switching to recyclable plastic within the next year.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: