> There is a competing platform that has all the properties you espouse.
Thanks. This platitude was refreshingly insightful, and not obvious
> users seem to prefer using the Mac App Store.
Citation needed. Also, notarization is mandated by Apple, or the app isn't allowed to run. Guess what? The notarization certificate costs more than the Mac Store review (developer account).
Lastly, are you an Apple employee, or just a fanboy?
This is standard fear-mongering from Apple fanboys. The truth is that consumers gravitate to lean, high-quality apps regardless of a review process - the market is the ultimate review.
I personally would not use any app that did what you described, and I don't see why anyone else would willingly use them.
It doesn't take an anal probe by Apple to push high quality apps to the top of consumer mindshare.
Also, let's for a moment assume Apple does give a flying f* for end-users. If they did, they wouldn't charge a $99 annual, per developer fee, and ban competitors (Steam, alternate payment methods, non Safari browser engines,...), retroactively revise app store policies, whimsically reject app submissions, purposefully cripple Safari's W3C compliance and force developers on to the app store, ....
Apple's review process is 95% rooted in monopolistic control, & 5% in what their PR/spin claims it to be
Outside of the "cult of Mac", people aren't really convinced on a $1000 laptop-ish device, on which apps are only allowed to run after passing an anal probe from the app store review team.
Which is why Apple stopped reporting unit sales on devices
> At the scale of shit the world is dealing with right now, it just doesn't matter.
There are different ways to cope with adversity. The "Keep calm and carry on" method is a contrasting formula, which applied to Chrome, would see maybe one release versus three or four, even in the midst of an adversity.
As much ubiquitous suffering as there is currently, the comfort of at least a (slower than usual) browser release can be a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak horizon. Heck, if my browser won't even update, forget fixing a massively multivariate system/problem like public health, or the economy.
Your/Google's self awareness of privilege is much appreciated. But if you really want to make a difference, a slower release cadence is much more uplifting than resigning to the virus.
I don't understand. Regardless of COVID, they always need to consider the impact on developers.
Like I said in my previous comment, the newly remote Chrome team may be facing many unseen roadblocks, but I expect that to be a temporal window of delay, after which the team should resume shipping, albeit at a slower cadence due to reduced productivity compared to normal-times WFH.
Remote work now is likely lower in productivity than normal-times WFH.
If a software company cannot adjust to remote delivery, albeit at lower than normal productivity, the rest of the economy has no hope.
I don't understand Google's decision here - I wish they simply predicted a longer than normal release cadence, versus none at all
Yes, the only possible explanation here is corruption of the local Democrat government, that openly hates Elon/Theil.
Also, since Elon, Theil et al. don't kowtow the leftist political line, they're demonstrably lacking ethics, presumed to favor profit over pandemic, unless proven otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent FTW
The only person taking anything I said out of context is you. I've been very specific about the 7% estimate being unique to Italy, replete with a source. I've never claimed that to be the overall wordlwide mortality rate, so read before accusing someone.
> Please, act responsibly ..
I suggest you practice what you preach, and read someone else's well intentioned, informed opinion without attributing malice or intent to spread falsehoods.
Most of all, the false narrative that a universal health care system somehow handles pandemics any better is clearly being proven wrong in the case of Italy, which is what I was trying to point out
Italy has both universal health coverage and sick leave policies, but is still reeling with a 7% mortality rate [1] and crisis. Neither replaces good leadership and policy/decision making by public health officials, and certainly has ZERO effect on pandemics.
FYI, countries routinely provide free health care [2] during pandemics because it typically is an existential crisis for it's civil society and economy.
The article fails to ask the obvious next question: if this can potentially apply to much cheaper and instantaneous tests, maybe something ultrasound based? I'm not an expert on medical imagining, so can someone comment on ultrasounds' usefulness here?
I'd rather have a sustainable Gilead, with a strong moral compass that prices things fairly, to invent the next antiviral.
But the middlemem and insurance companies add ZERO value - invent nothing, treat/cure no one. They're just a leech in the system, and they definitely shouldn't profit from a pandemic
Almost certainly a lie. What would techcrunch write about, if the founders said something banal?
Revisionist, sexy origin stories are a proven way of getting free press. Somewhere, these guys are actually confessing how much free press their wild concoction earned them
If approved for treatment, I hope this is fairly priced, given that the CDC predicts 40M infections in the US.
Just to be clear, pricing ultimately comes down to insurance companies, middlemen taking a cut, and a government mandate that can pressure the ecosystem into acting in the public interest in times of a pandemic. So please make a reasonable profit to continue developing treatments, but DON'T get greedy, especially applies to insurance companies and middlemen whose entire role is financial engineering adding next to nothing in value