Agreed. I've had to use factories in Obj-C plenty. I guess the argument that I would make is that they are much easier to implement in Obj-C and require less boilerplate (especially if you use blocks), not that the pattern doesn't exist in Obj-C.
This may be a nitpick, but how can something be "fairly deterministic"? Is it possible for there to be degrees of determinism? I would consider determinism to binary, either something is deterministic, or it is not. If a thing cannot be demonstrated to be deterministic 100% of the time, then by it's very definition it is non-deterministic. By that logic, I would actually conclude that the entire universe does in fact behave deterministically. If it didn't, then I don't see how science would even be possible.
I was avoiding an absolute statement because macroscopic objects are entirely capable of behaving in unpredictable ways, however the odds against are so high that the chance of this happening is infinitesimal.
It'd be nice if the author of the story would point out how Instapaper is different than Business Insider, in that the content it "harvests" is content that the user must first see by going to the actual website where the content exists, and save the page for later viewing, meaning that the original site still gets credit for at least 1 page view. Instapaper also does not pretend or try to trick the reader into thinking that the content belongs to or is generated by Instapaper staff. Henry Blodget knows that his actions are dubious, and is grasping at straws with his comparison.
You mean like how the competition has caught up with the iPad? Oh, wait...
edit: Also, they've been selling the iPhone 4 for a long time now, it has sold better than all of the previous models, and it's still selling incredibly well in spite of the expectations that a new model will be released soon. Doesn't really seem like the "one size fits all" approach has backfired on them at all, especially when that one size fits so well...
another edit: "there is currently no competitor to the Apple products he's discussing"...isn't that part of the point he was trying to make? That other companies are unable to compete currently because they don't control their supply chain as well or as tightly as Apple is able to, as Apple only offers a few options as opposed to the overwhelming amount of near-useless (to the average laptop buyer) options that the other guys offer?
First, before I get started on the piracy bit, there are a few things in this article that are cliche and offputting. The minute I saw these things, I was immediately unsurprised about their app's lack of success.
"GAMEized is one of the newest game development agencies to take the industry by storm, and we did it through an innovative marketing approach and solid game development"
There are very few iOS developers who are taking anything by storm. Rovio, Andreas Illiger, Newtoy...those guys took the app store by storm. The developers of the other 400,000+ apps in the app store...not so much. Simply saying something is "innovative" or "solid" does not make it so. What is "innovative" about GAMEized's marketing approach? What is it that makes their development so "solid"? If it their approach was so innovative, surely I would've heard about their game before this article showed up on HN...
"After several hours of research and development..."
Why is it that there are so many iOS devs that think that they can spend "several hours" doing anything and expect anyone to care? Name me one great app that has come along and was profitable as the result of "several hours" of work. Found one yet? Exactly...
"FingerKicks is an exciting and addicting game we developed for all iOS platforms (iPOD, iPHONE and iPAD). It’s simple to play and exciting to master"
This is how damn near every single app developer describes their app these days. If I see the words "addictive" or the phrase "simple to play, difficult to master" or some other variation, I immediately choose not to download it. Eli Hodapp from TouchArcade wrote a great a article about describing your app: http://a-13.net/post/8151551632/addictive-polished-gems
Anyway, to the piracy bit. I'm sure many people upon reading this story immediately began to imagine ways in which they curtail the piracy problem by implementing some unique piracy detection method or other approach to prevent people from illegally playing their game. Put those thoughts out of your head, it's a waste of time. Pirates will always find a way to get what they want for free. And for all of your efforts to stop them, all that will have happened in the process is that you will have lost valuable hours that you can never get back conceiving and implementing those efforts, hours that you could have spent instead making your app better. Does it suck that most iOS apps have a 90% piracy rate? Sure. Is there really something you can do about it? Perhaps. Is it worth your time to bother? Definitely not. Angry Birds, Tiny Wings, Words with Friends...those games are not at the top of the charts because of their innovative anti-piracy measures. They are at the top of the charts because they are fantastic games.
A common fallacy is the believe that pirated copies == lost sales. This is simply not true. There are an overwhelming amount of pirates who will get your app for free simply because they can. There are only a handful of people out there spending the time to actually crack the apps. Then, they post them onto sites like AppTrackr or Installous, and the majority just download the apps from there. If everyone had to actually crack the app themselves, the amount of illegal downloads would certainly decrease, because most people just can't be bothered to put that much effort into it. But when it's just sitting right there, ready to go, then hey, why not? Most pirates will not suddenly start paying for your app simply because they can't get it for free. It's also worth noting that the perceived value of these pirated apps is low in their eyes. They have no vested interest, and their level of enjoyment from the app is low in most cases (based on analytics data from my own game, most people who pirated the app never ran it more than once or twice, whereas most of the people who actually payed for the app came back at least several times to play).
As a point of reference, the guys from 2D Boy posted on their blog a couple of years back on the piracy rate of World of Goo (http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/). Lo and behold, it was sitting around 90%. In that article they have a lot of info backing up the oft-heard claims that pirated copies != lost sales, and relate several points on whether DRM is actually effective at getting people to pay for your game (spoiler: it's not). Since then, they have released versions of the game on the Wii, the Mac, the Xbox, and all iOS devices. And you know what? They made a killing. In fact, the iPad version outsold all of the other versions combined (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/02/09/world-of-goo-for-ipad-outsell...). Instead of spending their time worrying about the pirates, they spent their time doing work that mattered, porting their work to devices where there is a significant audience of people willing to pay a couple of bucks for their game.
And you know what else? World of Goo is a fantastic game.
So, before the next time someone jumps to blame Apple for their lack of efforts to prevent piracy on jailbroken devices, and making them the scapegoat for the horrific failure that was their iOS app, maybe the lens should be turned inward and there should be some reflection on why exactly their game didn't attract paying users. Odds are, you'll find that your game just isn't that good.
Indeed. In fact, Gruber has, on several occasions, encouraged readers to go Flash-free, which I'm sure has an impact on the number of his visitors that don't have Flash installed.
Intellectual Ventures is also a patent troll. It's just higher profile and has people involved that had some level of existing respectability at some point in the past.
Perhaps, but now Apple has contested that their developers are in fact licensed, and that Lodsys has already received what they claim is due to them. Seems like they've found a way to inject themselves into the battle in a way that should bring the fight home to them.
Most apps who are able to make anything at all average somewhere around $4000-7000 in sales for the lifetime of their app. I can attest to that firsthand. Even at 70% it is not a viable business model for most (except for the <1% who are fortunate enough to make a lot of money in the app store). If every damned patent troll comes out of the woodwork claiming their share, then it will even be less worthwhile than it is now.
