Wouldn't total-utilitiarian then prefer a population of 1000000 mostly unhappy people over a population of 100 very happy people? In that case it would at least be an awkward benchmark, as you just need to procreate as much as possible to get the "best" scenario.
I'm assuming this is so that if you speak the name of one of your contacts, it understands the word. Names can be weird, especially last names, so they're bound not to be in the standard list of words that can be used. This way you can name your contacts when dictating without the system freaking out.
I was at the talk, and the way he explained it was that the first column allows for less customization. Kenneth said that if he would use Linux he would spend all day tweaking it, and not getting work done. The same goes for pen & paper notes over digital notes, once they're written down, you're not tweaking them anymore. A simple text editor does not have all the fancy functions to play with that an IDE does. So he is indeed advocating the first column, with regards to them being tools that are not as configurable as the second column.
The 30% margin may be high, but the fact that the store keeps some of the money is not that surprising, is it?
I do not believe keeping the price equal to other helps the consumer, it's simply Apple keeping developers from charging the 30% straight to the consumer. I believe it would be interesting if they let this restriction slide. Perhaps the advantage of simple purchasing makes up for an increase in price. Convenience is also worth something, as supermarkets have found out.
The app works very nicely. It can feel a bit unresponsive, for example when you press "Done" on a note it takes some time to upload the note, but you don't see anything, which makes me want to press the button a gazillion more times. Maybe a nice spinner there would make things clearer.
Also, just out of curiosity, how are you planning to make money with this?
I guess the zero friction upgrading refers to the app, not the browser. You can be pretty sure people are running the latest version just by pushing the code to your server. No need to download/install, or update in an app store.
It's different because he did not take the sheet music. He heard the recording and decided to play his own version of it. Music may well be the worst example here, because it happens all the time. Now I'm not sure with regards to the financial side of performing a cover (rather than recording it), but at least in a casual context it happens for free.
This is exactly the point that makes using Mongo a breeze. You can just play around with your models without having to worry about a thing. You just code it up as you go along, and your database just works.
I'd say it's better to have half a product than to have a product that spills your e-mail credentials all over the web. It's not like they try to hide the shortcoming in their app, they are open about it. If you feel the lack of push is a dealbreaker then you can just not use or buy the app.
I like that they're being honest about this and are focussing on what they are good at. The request push option, useless as it may be with Apple in charge, might be just what is needed. As they already state, allowing an e-mail app into the app store in the first place is a step in the right direction. Why not try to prod Apple to take another one.
Why not? If Google gives me a crappy mail app on my iPhone I am definitely not switching to Android. On the other hand, if it is high quality I may actually be tempted to switch.
It is perfectly possible to use a deployment-specific version of Python, just like it is with Ruby. But there are organizations where using old technology is (unfortunately) the status quo. This means Django gives you the possibility of still running it in these environments. Hell, there's loads of companies using older versions of Windows and IE. Is it optimal? No, but that's something bureaucracy tends to do.
I am not trying to say Django is a better framework better for making this decision, but it is a decision that makes sense in the Python context, which is careful about breaking backwards compatibility. There's no reason to stop a developer who has that choice to work with Python 2.7 though (this is actually recommended in the FAQ). There is no need to touch the system's Python to do that.
I agree with the sentiment, the interface seems to be aimed at looking nice more than being usable, which would make it so much easier to use as a reference. But if you follow the check-list in the "book", it is not actually a web app itself. It's aimed at someone reading its content, not really using it as an application. So I guess they kind of found a loophole for themselves.
The reason the Inuit can eat an diet consisting only of meat while remaining healthy is that it matches their lifestyle. A big problem for health in western society is the mismatch between those two, I don't think you can blame either one in isolation. We don't do a whole lot, but we eat a load of sugary stuff. This is a big part of Michael Pollan's critique on our diet, it is a very interesting read.
Besides, there are the obvious other health-related reasons to not eat factory-farmed meat, which most of our meat is. For that I can only recommend reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer. It was what pushed me over the line into becoming a vegetarian.
I like that they point this out, but in theory this goes for the desktop as well. I guess the difference and reliability between the desktop OS/browser platform is seen as more established than the mobile platforms. This makes sense right now, but may well be something that grows over time into less of an issue.
It's an interesting point you make about signing in with Facebook. I actually prefer it if a site allows me to login with credentials I already have, it takes away the barrier of signing up. Now I usually would prefer if something uses Twitter, but Facebook is ok.
So now I'm curious, do people in general prefer to make new accounts for new sites, or are they ok with using something they have.
I thought the whole "Web-apps makers are outsmarting Apple" angle was done by now. One of the reasons these kinds of sites work well is because Apple does a pretty nice job of allowing you to "appify" them. That kind of support makes it really nice, and shows that Apple is not trying to force people into the App Store. You might argue they overcharge you for using the App Store, but mobile web apps, when done well, are serious contenders for certain use cases. So there's really no reason to focus on this kind of drama.
Spot on. When people throw "freedom" into the discussion they often fail to understand just how big the concept is. Every choice made in engineering restricts some kinds of freedom. What about the freedom to press fewer buttons? Some people prefer that over the freedom of file management. As long as people can make these kinds of trade-offs, they are still free to do what they want.
I find it much nicer to use the term autonomy, which can be seen as "meaningful freedom". To some people having a commandline interface (which they do not know how to operate) is not a meaningful freedom to have at all.