The actual reality is that it's impossible to have people go to a web site from a physical ad/offer/thing without using a QR (or paying Google). Google (and friends) managed to hide the URL almost totally, people don't even know that you can go somewhere without searching on google. So the options are: paying google to have your name point to you (an expensive choice depending on the actual name) or use a QR. Weirdly enough people uses QRs this way. I think the restaurants/bars menus after the pandemic only digital via QR opened this way (again, it was trendy also many years ago).
Did domain names stop functioning all of the sudden? Going to somedipshitsbar.com/menu is about as complicated as entering a wifi password at a coffee shop.
You type in and trust random URLs? You just click on random URLs?
No, I don't just go around and scan every random QR code sticker on every single lamp post without any kind of context. But a QR code on the back of a business card with their contact information already nicely digitally formatted? Sure. A friend's QR code of their WiFi credentials on a little plaque in the den? Sure. A QR code at the bar showing the live tap list menu? Sure. A presenter giving the presentation slides by QR code? Sure.
And I pay attention to the URL that QR code is sending me to before I actually decide to go there. The QR code is just so I don't have to type in reallylongannoyingurl.ninja/some-horrific%20path/and?with=junkinit. It shows me the URL and asks "Do you want to go to obviousgoatse.com?" after it scans the code. That's the tap 2 of the two taps.
Consumers don't care. QR is easier for them and owners get analytics plus built in table identified ordering. I brought up the attack vector to a table full of developers back when this was taking off, just shrugs.
They'll get analytics from digital menus regardless of if a QR code is scanned or not. The QR code isn't really making a difference here, other than maybe adding in a specific table ID.
> built in table identified ordering...attack vector
Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before.
They're going to get a lot more verifiable information about me when they run my payment card than what they'll glean from a fresh browser tab.
The analytics are very different when you have locality built in. You know exactly how many times your menu was scanned in house.. how long they spent on the page etc has much more meaning. An open website mixes traffic.
I'm not promoting QR codes here. When I can avoid them I do. It's just that the incentives for owners and consumers are better with them and that's the challenge.
> Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before
I have no idea what you're on about here. I'm clearly referring to quishing to collect payment info. It's very easy to copy a website and plop a QR code onto a picnic table over the old one.
Do people actually pay through a QR code through a sticker on the table though? I've never seen that nor would I ever do such a thing, because yeah that's obvious.
I will scan a QR code on a check the waiter printed for me and pay through that.
> You know exactly how many times your menu was scanned in house
The vast majority of the time I've seen a QR code stuck to a table its just goosejuicerestaurant.com/menu or https://taplist.io/demo-brewery on the QR code. About the only real time I've seen otherwise has been McDonalds, but they have raised metallic emblems glued to the table, it would be pretty obvious if it was messed with. And I'm not sure if they're even useful outside of the app.
> Do people actually pay through a QR code through a sticker on the table though? I've never seen that nor would I ever do such a thing, because yeah that's obvious.
Yeah, technically. But just everyone _normal_ just pays using Stripe often without even knowing about it. On the _walled garden_ all is so clear that my 70 years aunt is able to do it. And there is no exceptions to the rule: every subscription made through the App Store is there and it's cancellable...
30% is a robbery, and the confusion on the customer "ownership" is true, but it's not useful for the discussion to negate the advantage the _garden_ offers to the basic consumer
The "chrome" of an app is the part surrounding the main windows, like toolbars and the such.
IIRC when Chrome appeared, the name was chosen because it was a browser without chrome (ie: it used to be just the rendering windows with the url bar on top), differently from other browsers at the time.
Piracy is not-impactful is not true. The disappearance of indie software that do not depend on a remote server (or that's not software on a remote server) is basically due to the inability to monetize with sales native, stand-alone, software. And that's for the piracy.
In some way, the success of the App Store towards indie/solo developers is because there was a way to sell things without the piracy easily steal your sales.
Yes, I know that "it's not stealing", "it's not theft", etc. Beside the ethical/moral conundrum of piracy, the fact is that it destroys the market for small developers.
So depending on product category it might be a large drop (EU study finds -38% displacement rate for books) but it might also be a boost (EU study finds +24% for video games), and it is hard to say in general, since even a 90% piracy rate might only mean a maximum of 5%-10% lost sales (from the wolfire blog post). Either way it isn't at the level of "impossible to succeed".
If we are talking about app stores specifically, I bet a much bigger factor in (lack of) success is discoverability, both because your app is literally hard to find and because app store owners allow a flow of cheap clones to compete with your genuine app.
Remember that we are talking about small developers.
Yes, Adobe, Microsoft or makers of viral AAA games absolutely benefit from piracy (that’s why they have actually tolerated it for decades): it helps their software penetrate the market and get more users hooked up on their ecosystem. However, to John Doe’s lifestyle business of a couple small niche or utility apps each lost sale is bread off the table.
In addition, piracy on iOS is great for major providers who do subscription services (a device where you can pirate means a device with more users, and more users means more monthly revenue).
Again, the people hit the most are the above-mentioned small time John Does.
Well, the point I was trying to make, said in another way is that the initial success of App Store (iOS, in particular) was driven that the fact that , suddenly, users thought that was OK to pay for the software. I think that the (relative) lack of piracy and difficulty for ordinary users to install pirated software has been a key factor in the success of it: "there's an app for that, and I can't easily find it for free".
The other point I was trying to make is that the disappearance of "stand-alone" apps, not tied to a web service, is primarily driven by the fact that, this way, you can avoid piracy. You can offer a free-tier (that would be eaten by the piracy anyway) and sell (say) a synchronize, or additional features tied to a web service (so not printable).
May be it's not the only thing, but that's what (anecdotically) I hear from solo-indie-very small developers.
I fully agree with you on both the current discoverability problem and also with games piracy having a different, may be even not negative effect.
> suddenly, users thought that was OK to pay for the software
I would argue almost the opposite way. Users are now conditioned to expect the software to be free with ads of 99 cents. Both greatly lowering the cap on what people can charge for software due to expectations. Instead we've seen the rise of subscription services apps that have no business needing one.
Not sure in which world you’re living. Remember shareware and cracked versions of it? Remember having to jump through hoops to get paid for software (or indeed to pay, if you were a user)? Especially if user and developer lived in different countries.
Apple created a new reality where you pay 99 cents and buy to own. It made so very compelling, through general ease of payment flow that just works worldwide and through a large ecosystem of compelling hardware.
Then, subscription behemoths like Epic started crying how it’s all unfair. Of course, it is to them, but there is no way kowtowing to them is beneficial to small app developers.
The only evidence is that developers think they need to do these things because of piracy, which is not the same as actually needing to. A moral panic about a thing does not prove the thing is actually a problem, and the effects of the panic itself shouldn't be blamed on the thing, either.
This would be true if the only alternative to piracy is not using said content or software. If paying is a valid alternative to a nonzero fraction of pirate users if piracy was not an option, then the piracy does affect the creators economically.
> If it weren't, you wouldn't be experiencing this cascade of downvotes, so get with the program.
Disregarding this statement's general silliness, it is also downvoted. Now we're in a paradox. Downvotes mean you're wrong, so the statement that downvotes mean you're wrong..is wrong?
I'm from Naples, in the south of Italy and, while pasta with seaweed is indeed not existing here (I can't even imagine why you should do that to pasta), fritter with seaweed are common, here --> cfr. https://blog.giallozafferano.it/studentiaifornelli/zeppoline...
I think the key is that this is not a VR device but an AR one. The illusion is harder to maintain in AR but if you manage it is way more tricky. The difference between VR and AR is undervalued in the discussion. imho, the ability to do a credible AR (due to superior computational power and the abundance of sensors) _could_ be the key for Vision success
Except it's not really--in the sense of an out-in-the-world-walking-around HUD. And certainly the keynote emphasized in-home entertainment and (I think?) gaming. It's got elements of AR to it but it seems much more like VR+. (And Apple was almost certainly smart to just coin their own term.)
If you are a developer, and you don't target iOS nor macOS you're right. Otherwise, for people that must use business or graphical (like Adobe CC) apps linux is not a viable option and between macOS and Windows well, choose your poison, but I like macOS more (at least is unix). This is said as a person that used linux, and even Solaris and freeBSD on his machine for years, when I could do it. Not everyone has the same constraints
Not OP, but for me the answer to your question is: is a tool I need. I _could_ use Windows, and absolutely not Linux/BSD (for the programs/tools I need for work), and, frankly, I don't think Windows is better.
Yes, I know that's not completely true. I _could_ use Linux (I even used Solaris on a notebook for 2 years in the past and I survived) but the cost in terms of effort, lost productivity would be higher than I'm ready to pay. It's a rational choice.
Yes and not. It's a bit like Apple, nothing is really new or cutting edge, but the packaging is smart and the UI/UX is beautiful. I think same is for multiverse, otherwise Second Life should have won already.
