I had similar issue with iOS.
I didn't disable in-app purchase and right after installing the game, my 6 year old spent $55 and when I got the receipt email a day later it was too late to reverse the transaction.
Lesson learned and in-app option turned off.
"This one is funny, and has a couple of obvious solutions that have been prevented due to internal politics. The short answer is that they have a couple of different recommender systems, all competing against each other internally for sales lift.
One is purely based off of pageviews. When you get recommendations for something you already bought, many times it is because you looked at it, but they don't know nor care if you already bought it. In their words, it works really well and accounting for sales brings in a lot of needless complexity.
Another is based off of sales. They also don't care if you already bought it because according to them, it works well. I remember trying to point out to them that for some types of products (specifically consumable products) this would work really well, but durables not so much. They claimed otherwise, that although they couldn't explain it, it was entirely common for people to rebuy things like vacuum cleaners and TVs and kitchen knives. I did a tiny bit of research to show them why they thought that, and proved with a small segment (vacuum cleaners, I believe), that after you filter for returns and replacements, that the probability of sequentially buying two of the same vacuum cleaner was effectively zero. They asked me to do it for the rest of their products, but I didn't have limitless time to spend on helping another team, especially one with a PM who was a complete dick to me for having the audacity to make a suggestion that he hadn't thought of.
In all, I believe there are a dozen or so recommender services, each with their own widget. There are tons of people that think all of the recommenders have merits in some areas and drawbacks in others, and the customer would be better off if they merged concepts into a single recommender system. But they all compete for sales lift, they all think their system is better than the other systems, and they refuse to merge concepts or incorporate outside ideas because they all believe they are fundamentally superior to the other recommenders. Just a small anecdotal glimpse at the hilariously counterproductive internal politics at Amazon."
>after you filter for returns and replacements, that the probability of sequentially buying two of the same vacuum cleaner was effectively zero.
But aren't the returns segment significant? "I bought this vacuum cleaner, returned it because it didn't suck (!); oh and look, this advert said this one has the best suction."?
Also, it seems common amongst some sectors to rebuy: like parents might buy a coat, find it's good, rebuy for the other children. Landlords might update their properties, rebuying items that work well and are robust enough, etc..
As a different poster than Parent posted, people are not goldfish. In all those repeat purchase scenarios the buyers know what they bought and can buy again if they so choose (in the near future). If it's six months down the road, I can see maybe this would be useful.
I submitted that article on HN but it didn't get any attraction.
It seems Ford CEO thinks they can collect and monetize drivers data:
-- So the case I would make is that we have as much data in the future coming from vehicles, or from users in those vehicles, or from cities talking to those vehicles, as the other competitors that you and I would be talking about that have monetizable attraction.
--The issue in the vehicle, see, is: we already know and have data on our customers. By the way, we protect this securely; they trust us. We know what people make. How do we know that? It’s because they borrow money from us. And when you ask somebody what they make, we know where they work; we know if they’re married. We know how long they’ve lived in their house, because these are all on the credit applications. We’ve never ever been challenged on how we use that. And that’s the leverage we’ve got here with the data.
It really comes across that he doesn't understand what he's talking about around tech. "Transportation Operating System"? It's cargo-culted technobabble.
sampleinajar is stating that when doctors were over-prescribing the patient became addicts. When those patients were cut-off from legally buying the drugs, they turned to black market where the quality of the drug is unknown which leads to overdose.
>I walk twice around the earth before even considering a subscription service.
I can't imagine going back not having music subscription service. I don't have to make a decision which album to buy anymore and I don't have to worry about my kids pirating music.
That's because the music subscription service was designed from the ground up to be exactly unlike the previous music business model; in fact the spotify model boils down to legal napster.
The problem is when something really has no reason to not be a one time purchase, like companies on instagram charging me $15 a month to send me three new pairs of socks twice a quarter, or maybe they mail me a wooden box once a month with some woodsy smelling beard oil, a leather flask, and a small axe.
Software is moving this way too; but I'm still in the camp that would shell out $25 for a program as is that would still work on my machine decades later even if the company folds or puts out another version, than pay $2 a month for something that might not work at all or fundamentally change its functionality in a year.
I've actually moved to preferring subscription software for things like 1Password (which moved from purchase to subscription).
Software is a moving target where everything else is changing around it - OS, hardware, web infrastructure, etc. and having devs continuing development on a tool I'm using is useful. The subscription model in this case accurately reflects the reality and is better than randomly having to pay $45 on occasion to upgrade to a version that still works.
I'd also argue that Spotify is better than legal Napster with its streaming and music playlist curation. Spotify may be the best software application I use on a regular basis.
That I agree. I've payed for spotify for nine years. But that's reasonable because it is streaming the music. As is netflix et al. Though I have yet to see a media subscription service with decent software. It would be much better if they could provide a decent API that people could integrate it. But that doesn't fit well with the lock-in, and lock-in is apparently the only thing worth doing.
I coach soccer for my kids. The primary obstacle to players development is that they've never watched a game therefore you have to teach them everything.
It seems Ford CEO thinks they can collect and monetize drivers data:
-- So the case I would make is that we have as much data in the future coming from vehicles, or from users in those vehicles, or from cities talking to those vehicles, as the other competitors that you and I would be talking about that have monetizable attraction.
--The issue in the vehicle, see, is: we already know and have data on our customers. By the way, we protect this securely; they trust us. We know what people make. How do we know that? It’s because they borrow money from us. And when you ask somebody what they make, we know where they work; we know if they’re married. We know how long they’ve lived in their house, because these are all on the credit applications. We’ve never ever been challenged on how we use that. And that’s the leverage we’ve got here with the data.
Assume you work from home, you can deduct portion of your internet, electricity, gas bill and mortgage. If you work primarily from home and go into the office, you can deduct millage.
Best thing for you to talk to an accountant.
How is the company paying you? Are you going through an agency? If not, you might have to get an independent insurance.
https://sqlperformance.com/2017/01/t-sql-queries/surprises-a...