Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Samuel_Michon's commentslogin

Food hacker news.


Having a native English speaker proofread the copy would’ve helped as well. It’s amazing how many mistakes they managed to make in such a short text.


I just went through the first 30 titles in the AFI top 100. Out of those 30, only four are not available in the iTunes Store: Sunset Blvd., Some Like it Hot, Star Wars, and The Grapes of Wrath. The other 26 are available and cost $3.99 to rent – all those are also available to buy, for $6-15.

I don’t have the time to search for the rest of the 70 titles in the iTunes Store, but from a few blind tests I did, I’d say the vast majority is available there.



Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If Apple decides a device is too slow to run a new major version of the OS, the decision will be condemned by people like u/jheriko. If Apple does let a 4 year old model run the new major release, people like u/gcb0 will complain that it’s slow.

Meanwhile, a three year old phone (iPhone 4) can run iOS 7 and run it well, albeit without fancy animations and parallax effect. I don’t know of any three year old Android phones that run Android 4.4.


Disclaimer: I think both platforms are shit in their own way. I prefer Android, though I actively hate it every day.

> I don’t know of any three year old Android phones that run Android 4.4.

I don't know either (not saying there aren't any). But the (lack of) support isn't Android vs. iOS. It's Apple vs Samsung vs Motorola vs Sony vs ...

For example i own Goog, err.. Motorola phone about as old as iPhone 4 and the most recent version it runs is 2.2 (AKA unusable crap). I use 2.3 via CM and there are 4.x builds available. On the other hand, Sony phones from 2011 (perhaps only some) received update to 4.1. This is just two manufacturers, out of many.


(i am not a fan of android at all and much prefer ios)

its trivial to solve. test the os update on old devices and don't push os updates to old phones if it destroys the user experience. i'm not going to condemn them for not ruining my user experience...

my issue is the fact that they change their tools and processes to make it impossible to support e.g. iPhone 1 if you want to. My app will run lovely on an iPhone 1 or 3G, but I can not make a version that runs on these phones as well as an iPhone 5. This is a choice, not a technical constraint or avoiding maintenance costs - I'm very sure its /more/ expensive to do this than not.

i'm fairly sure that its part of their strategy to encourage you to use the latest devices. lots of apple consumers seem to be aware that 'apple don't give a crap about you if you use their old stuff' - i've heard this opinion unprovoked from very un-tech-savvy types much more often than once.

if you work with the apple tech much yourself its an obvious recurring theme - they all but explicitly tell you not to support old devices and then do make it actually impossible beyond a certain point.

this is just not the case for android or even windows or any other platform/os except for perhaps games consoles which are special - if i want i can make an app run across all android versions and have one entry in google play and supporting old versions of windows is trivial work usually. apple have the worst ecosystem for this by miles and miles - nobody else comes close

...and actually old android phones do run 4.4 - you have to put it there manually perhaps, but this is at least possible. it actually has performance benefits on older phones too... which is how it should be. the fact that each ios release is significantly slower isn't down to new features or niceness its programmer sloppiness.



The iPad and Surface RT have native apps that work offline. The iPad runs iTunes. Surface RT tablets run Office. Both run Office365. The iPad runs iWork, a good alternative to Office for many. Surface RT tablets run Windows.

I think that covers all the things that were listed in the video.


I find it interesting that Microsoft claims in this clip that a laptop isn’t a laptop if it doesn’t run Apple iTunes.

Personally, I can’t stand iTunes on Windows, but hey, clearly Microsoft knows what consumers want.


TL;DR: “If an article has more comments than votes, don’t add your comment to it or you may kill it off entirely!”

Rings true to me and, if indeed accurate, it seems like a good practice for HN.


Comments should matter more than votes. A thread with all votes but no comments is a meaningless number, but a thread with all comments but no votes is exactly the same as that thread with votes.

That particular weighting doesn't make sense to me. Clearly some people vote by commenting. Which is as it should be.


I disagree. If you like something, vote for it. If you don't like something, comment on why and don't vote for it. If something just doesn't belong here, flag.


But many people are downvoting with their comments.


Unintentionally, yes, that's the problem.


No, I meant intentionally.

They disagree with the article or what have you and say so in the thread.


Oh. Well, good. I think civil, negative comments have more value than just downvoting.


Interestingly, one of the few ways to vote down an article on HN.


No, Circa has a large team of actual human editors. That’s why the content is good.

Also, Circa started out as an iPhone app. The iPad and Android versions came later.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: