It isn't so much about how often it happens as it is about the fact that it happens at all. No, 90% of apps aren't being turned away for competing with the iPhone's built-in apps, but if any application is turned away not because it sucks, but because it's too good, that's a problem and it will discourage innovation.
You have a great go-get-'em attitude, but the issue isn't remotely similar to the question of whether or not to diet and exercise. It's more like, "Should I spend huge amounts of time and effort on diet and exercise in order to enter this bodybuilding competition, only to be disqualified at the last minute because I look too much like the competition judge's nephew?"
There is a bit of truth in it. Not necessarily the comparison to a diet, but still.
Becoming indignant & saying 'I'm out' is not useful. There's a potential snag here. It is a man made snag that's unfair, unreasonable or whatever. But that doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. It's not really more of a reason not to develop then any other reason that isn't unfair: too hard, too much competition, etc. The only difference is emotional.
The difference is that it's unpredictable, based on Apple's whims. If they said "Hey, here is a list of apps we won't accept from third party developers because we consider them to be competitive," that would be one thing. But as it stands, we don't even know where the line in the sand is, because the line is based on Apple's best interests, not those of the developers. Dozens of developers have released apps that duplicate (and improve upon) the functionality of the built-in Notes app, but when someone writes an app for podcast streaming (which the iPhone does not already offer, but which I'm sure they're planning on adding eventually), Apple nixes it. It's not just difficult, it's demoralizing.
You hit it on the head. Players leave rigged markets once they get burned once or twice, and pretty soon the market freezes up altogether.
Withdrawing from iPhone app development is the rational choice. There are other things developers like the author can work on with similar payoffs, but more predictable risks.
Betting against SMS would be like betting against email. I don't think either is going anywhere anytime soon.
And Android is like the linux for phone OSes (which is a weird thing to say since it actually is linux..), consumers want a unified, polished experience, not an ad-hoc one.
I think most handheld devices will be application-based in a few years, instead of relying on SMS, which is basically a cell's version of the command line.
By enumerating all possible moves, one can show that the first player can always win in normal-play games starting with n = 3, 4, or 5 spots. The second player wins when n = 0, 1, 2, or 6.
Am I missing something, or is the outcome of every sprouts games predetermined?
This means the first player wins for n = {3, 4, 5} if both players play perfectly. Similarly, if both players play perfectly, tic tac toe and checkers games result in draws. Fortunately, humans can make mistakes, rendering the outcomes less certain. :-)
Thats exactly what i said!! What is the big deal?
Actually I did play someone with 6 dots and won... so i think there might be ways of changing the outcome, for example if you use a line to encircle other lines to cut off their access. Either way, I thought this was a strategy game and it seems closer to the "dots and boxes" pencil game, ie...
> In most organizations the developers are some of the highest paid employees. They get paid well because their skills are scarce and hard to reacquire. This leads to entrenched “senior” developers who produce little, but “know” (and therefore get paid) a whole lot. It also shifts the emphasis to stability and away from being quick, nimble, and adaptive. Over time this turns your development teams into an occupying force rather than a fighting force.
When this process is unhindered a company's right brain starts to wither and die.
For an article whose author sets himself up as a sarcastic judge and jury of basically the whole web community, this provides very little insight or information.
I consider myself to have Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_syndrome), though whether it should qualify as a "syndrome" is debatable. I don't need more sleep than the average person, I just need it later in the 24-hour cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if many/most hackers are the same way.
I read an article that blue light can cause delayed sleep. Apparently, it interferes with the evening release of melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. The article speculated that the common perception that hackers are night-owls could be caused by staring at a monitor with blue backgrounds, etc. I don't know if its true.
Emissive light sources in general interfere with melatonin. I have a severe melatonin deficiency and I find that avoiding TV, monitors, and bright lightbulbs for an hour before bed helps tremendously in my ability to sleep, in conjunction with a synthesized melatonin medication (Rozerem). Books (and I imagine eBooks with eInk) are fine, but the laptop is not.
DSPS makes maintaining a normal 24-hour schedule painful. (Imagine having to get up one hour earlier every day! That's how a 24-hour schedule feels to me.) I have it and it takes a lot of self-discipline to hold down the 9-to-5 schedule. But it is possible with the right techniques.
More info on my experiences at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205179 .
This is an interesting look on it... didn't know it was actually a classified disorder. While my sleep cycle is pretty mixed, for the most part I can't sleep during the normal phases of the 24 period. Further, I don't have an exercise problem... I just do it whenever I feel up to it. My sleep cycle started to change rapidly when I worked the graveyard shift for my first professional job... did that for about 3-4 years, which really messed me up sleep-wise.
The one thing I love about night-hacking is the serious lack of distractions. It assists me greatly in concentrating... at least in my neck of the woods there is less distractions.
