Thanks for the compliment! This is actually not the idea we applied with. This is something we hope will WOW the panel (hopefully one of them is reading this right now...)
It would be nice -- after the deadline is done -- to have stats about the applications ; i.e. how many applications have been submitted, how is the distribution of application submissions by time/date, geolocation, etc.
They could make their app completely open source then ; in that way they'd probably have a better quality assurance process than "suffer, apologize & fix".
Blending this with browserify + backbone + redis will be really easy to do. I think it will definitely simplify the dev of our app ; allowing us to share even more code between the client and server so that we can maximize code reuse.
On that note, (browserify author here) I would love to see projects like nowjs start to abuse the "browserify" field in the package.json for client distribution like dnode v0.6 does (presently in staging until socket.io-node v0.7 lands). With this field you can `require('pkgname')` in your browser-side code just by specifying 'pkgname' in your require list, even though pkgname might have both server and browser-side components.
With this and the huge margins apple are already taking over the developers' revenue I really feel like we as developers are getting less and less respect from Apple.
I really think that what made OSX great was the fact that Xcode was completely free. We are the ones that make a platform a great one because of the app ecosystem that comes with it.
Putting prices -- however small they are -- on these dev tools put a barrier on the accessibility of the platform as a application dev environment.
I'm honestly really happy to have focussed my efforts towards web based apps instead... If its the future of computing -- iOS apps, and on device apps instead of web based -- it sure doesn't look so bright.
What got me into programming in the first place was that XCode was free. I just don't get why you'd charge this small an amount for something that you have to buy a thousand dollar computer from them to run it on.
It's hard to see this as anything but a tiny little insult.
I guess your comparison between the Xcode price and the one of the apple computer on which it runs is legitimate.
The problem here is not the cost of the package in itself -- it is indeed cheap in comparison to the aforementioned computer -- but in the fact that apple chose not to include this cost _in_ the retail price of OSX.
All the bruden is dropped on the devs who then needs to re-sell their apps, generally on the app-store where they are taken another cut.
Apple's strategy seems to give the maximum to the user, while charging the devs that then charge the users. They lock-in their user base, letting the devs deal with prices increases on both sides.
Come on. Let's not assume too much here. If what is said is correct, that this pricing is because of the accounting rules, then the cost of OS X 10.5 and 10.6 includes XCode 3. XCode 4 will be included in the cost of OS X 10.7.
I think the real reason explaining why apple has been able to get away with that is the fact that by (1) denying the issue, then (2) minimizing it by saying its a problem with all other phones, and thus (3) making the antenna problem an industry wide one, they were able to play win some time.
You see, the iphone -- or for the matter, any apple product -- can only be fully appreciated within a specific mindset, by adopting a specific reference frame, or point of view. To me, apple had to restore this my-iphone-has-so-many-feature-i-dont-care-about-the-issues POV that enabled them to initially sell a device with a lot less battery longevity than other competitor in the past.
Playing on time and making this a industry wide issue that is not so important, both allowed them to win more customer but also to allow those to adopt/restore this POV. Thus the more they had owners who just signed a X-years contract to get the new iphone the more they had advocates for their case.
The way I see this : its the ultimate win of the fanboy/evangelist strategy agains't the traditional "be-aware/show-you-care/do-your-share" PR moves.
If someone -- or any company for the matter -- can afford or not bad PR is way beyond the point.
The thing is : you usersy might be wrong,or might be right ; but the point is more that users are your even more than your whole business, giving them a good experience is your ultimate goal ; not just selling them a microblogging app.
In my opinion, comparison to steve jobs / apple here are extremely irrelevant ; yes, steve jobs might have earned the right to be obnoxious to bad clients, but the point is that apple as a company doesn't.
For one thing, its because their marketing goes hand in hand with their excellent customer service that this company is successful. Not because one compensate for the other. Its really a shame that somebody can treat its user base like that.
Also, pardon my curiosity, but is that the idea with which you applied to YC or did you come up with it for the interview ?
In any cases, good luck w/ your interview ; there is sure a lot of future in that type of apps!