whose

What a terrible article.

As for the developers, as was already mentioned, they need to advertise. I've never heard of this game and still don't know what it does even after this blog-whoring post. Nor does their little whiny rant on their own blog explain what the game does.

Making a great game and putting it on the App store absolutely is no guarantee of success. You can build the best widget, but if no one knows about it then it really doesn't matter, does it?

It seems like developers need a business and marketing class or two and need to learn about educating their customers.

Someone should make an SDK that allows a game to communicate with any and all other services. Not sure how possible that is, but it would be funny.

He's right, it's not really the apps themselves. But I think he misses the big point, it's the entire ecosystem. iPhone has that with iTunes and the App store. Microsoft is still suffering from disparate stores (Zune Marketplace, some sort of crappy Windows Mobile store, etc).

So it's not JUST the Apps. It's everything. And that's why Apple is winning and Microsoft is failing.

Mentok, I'm afraid you don't understand what the discussion is about. Apple defers revenue over 8 quarters for iPhone. Nokia, meanwhile, reports all revenue upfront. So by comparing those two numbers you aren't making a valid comparison.

Apple also reports the non-GAAP revenues and profits. There has recently been a change in the accounting laws that would allow them to make their officially filing using this method, though currently they do not. However, they do get the cash upfront from the carriers so it's money in the bank. They just defer it over 8 quarters.

To properly compare Apple and Nokia one must compare similar accounting methods, which Wilcox did not. He used deferred in Apple's case and non-deferred in Nokia's case. Probably because, like you, he doesn't understand the difference.

Flash is a resource hog on my MBP, I sure as hell don't want it on my iPhone!

Open web standards are what's needed, not a proprietary, overused, and terrible option like Flash.

Whew, boy, you got me! I don't know your name!

It's a ridiculous post and the entire logic of it is based on entitlement. You have a used product, a part fails, you should be compensated with an equivalent part while under service contract. Since it's a used product that means a used part. That's how it works in every industry.

Your little rant of a blog post was self-serving and provided little value to TUAW. You are approaching Steve Sande quality.

@Jason Carr

And it still makes for an entirely lame article about a standard practice in most industries. Just because you were perhaps too ignorant or entitled to understand this doesn't make it blog-worthy.

Because they've been sucking so bad.

Exactly. WTF? There's nothing that indicates this is for Snow Leopard, and we know it's not specific to SL because it was released in August. Even the linked to release notes specify this came out in August.

What's with the crap posts this weekend? Next thing you know they'll tell you replacement parts aren't brand new! (oh, right)