> Charles Babbage recognized the performance penalty imposed by ripple-carry and developed mechanisms for anticipating carriage in his computing engines.
It's not at all unusual for loanwords to get different meanings when they are adopted. Wikipedia gives this lovely example:
The English word Viking became Japanese バイキング (baikingu), meaning "buffet", because the first restaurant in Japan to offer buffet-style meals, inspired by the Nordic smörgåsbord, was opened in 1958 by the Imperial Hotel under the name "Viking".
If it is a “specialized”,”pro” niche app people are usually willing to spend more.
It’s hard to make a living selling a niche app to price sensitive people.
Also if it is a niche app, with a small addressable market, how do you continue making money on it since their is no facility for upgrade pricing - especially since you have to keep releasing updates to support newer devices and new screen sizes?
"people are usually willing to spend more" : not in my case ( and probably many other)
when i say it is a niche market i mean it not only in terms of number of customers, but also in term of potential generated revenues. there are businesses , especially in artistic fields, where people simply aren't willing to spend a lot of money on accessories, even if they are useful to their job.
now i'm not saying i will never be able to be profitable enough. just that with my current marketshare ( which is very good on a local scale, but not yet worldwide), those 30% are what makes the difference.
ps : as for the revenue model, i had to invent some kind of pay per use model, based on in app purchases.
I think perhaps your business model isn't as solid as you might think. Producing an app is not a free pass to live on the revenue, and the market capture is an important part.
I'm not an app developer, I'm in the music industry (day job in IT infra), but it seems to me there are some people projecting their bad business sense onto Apple. As per my other comment in this thread, and the reply someone made for me, the commission drops on subscription based apps, could you not use a subscription, rather than your pay-per-use system (which sounds like a creative workaround, kudos) and then you'll get the benefit of the tax rolloff.
Trying to make your own way in this world is damn hard work, and if a business model falls apart because one needs to "pay taxes," Apple will not be the biggest problem for very long. I'm sure most here would agree that it stinks that Apple are demanding a 30% tax whilst paying ~0% to the U.S. Government, but that is the way of things for now.
I don’t understand your comment. I have other sources of revenue, mainly doing development for customers. I didn’t bet everything on that app and raised money on the expectation this would be a gold mine. I’m just stating a fact : without those 30%, in my present situation, i could live only based on this app revenues. With the 30% cut, i can’t.
I understand, I was inferring some blame on Apple's part from your commentary -- as though they were denying you a living from your app. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Probably shouldn't necro this thread any more than I have :)
That's one way to look at it. All businesses come down to balancing income with expenses indeed. All i'm saying is that 30% cut on the income by apple makes it harder , and sometimes impossible , for some business model to survive.
I'm not sure about your calculation. A business with only 29% gross profit margin wouldn't be able to survive on the app store because they'd have to give 30% to apple.
Where did you get 29% from? I’m assuming that you are the only developer working on this (you didn’t say otherwise), for every $1 that someone spends, you get .70 cents.
But then why do you assume i've got no expenses ? Just because i'm the only one working on it doesn't mean i don't have to pay myself something to live. That's actually my point : the app doesn't generate enough revenue to cover my personnal expenses.
If it's a niche app, I'd imagine you would monetize it differently than a 99c clicker game (eg. sell a subscription to the app on your website, or supply it as a companion to hardware you sell, or something) and the app itself would most likely be free to install off the web store.
I've seen companies get around the upgrade pricing question by just releasing a new version of their app every year and deprecating the old one.
Nope. That's not how it's defined. A guinea worm is also a living creature, as is a mosquito, but they aren't beings. Beings is used to refer to intelligent life.
Do you think there's a difference between "Ashoka warred with Kalinga" (contemporary and/or near-contemporary evidence survives) and "Ashoka built 84,000 stupas" (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that there is no historical evidence for this). Because that's the distinction being drawn above.
> Can I Lose My Trademark Rights If I Don’t Sue Infringers?
>
> The short answer is “No,” a trademark owner does not have to sue every single infringer, and the failure to do so in an isolated case of infringement will likely not result in abandonment.
> However, the failure to take action in the face of widespread infringement could significantly impact a mark owner’s rights.
> It is for this reason that many larger companies that invest heavily in their trademark portfolios err on the side of caution in pursuing infringers.
That is by no means an apt metaphor. Mathematicians are in the business of creating new mathematics, not in studying the "language" in which mathematics happens to be written. Of course the history of mathematics is replete with contributions from physicists and others, particularly during the period when the educated could turn their hand to nearly any such discipline and find a problem on which progress could be made.
Yes. In fact it has often been noted by physicists that when they make a new discovery they sometimes find that mathematicians have been there before them. Like Einstein and non-euclidean geometry etc.
It more often goes the other way, and more profoundly.
Group theory.
Laplace transforms were considered an irrelevant curiosity until somebody figured out they were isomorphic to the wildly effective Heaviside D operator. Then everyone did their best to bury Heaviside's demonstrations of their utility, and pretend that Laplace had done all the heavy lifting.
> Charles Babbage recognized the performance penalty imposed by ripple-carry and developed mechanisms for anticipating carriage in his computing engines.