I agree with your sentiment and hate the lame titles programmers apply to themselves, but you're missing a key point. Calling yourself a programmer is fine when your company's product is the software you write. If I work at id or at a company that sells iPhone apps and I call myself a programmer, it's obvious what value I create. But for the people making internal business software (90% of programming jobs according to Patrick) a programmer is associated with costs rather than profits, so it's a bad idea to craft an identify as a "programmer".
We're not talking about replacing TCP as the standard transport protocol. But if you're a mobile app developer and you control both the client (via a native app) and the server you can use whatever you want. If someone provided client and server implementations of a more efficient networking protocol it could become popular.
I have no idea about monetization though. I doubt just charging for the code would work.
What time of the week was it previously posted to HN? Something like this will likely do better on the weekend, when there's less going on in general, and people have more time to watch hour long videos.
The infantilizing of movies has been very disappointing for me personally. I seem to have a lot of friends that only want to see CG movies, usually from Pixar or Dreamworks. Sit them down to watch a live action drama and in fifteen minutes the iphones come out to play Angry Birds. Very frustrating.
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's in Google's interest to keep developers happy, for sure. As a developer, though, the idea that I have "rights" of any kind (past what's specified in a contract) is hilarious.
I've never understood why a startup would choose to grow to the size where it needed two layers of management, unless the individual product they were working on was really of a complexity too high for a small team to manage (like, say, a nuclear reactor.) For products that stay the same size, but gain new sub-products, cross-products, side-businesses, etc., why not just "undergo mitosis" and become two startup-sized companies, each handling a single facet of the business but sharing a treasury and building?
This is the norm with all web applications. The frequency of regressions will depend on a lot of factors. One of the reasons I think this works well for web apps is that the deployment environment is exceptionally consistent and stable when compared to the world of desktop os's. It would be awful if your text editor broke while you were in the middle of using it, but that is the situation I am in right now with my email. How much trust do you give the developers?
yes. Whether it's desktop apps, local os, iphone apps, android apps, any interest in this stuff in the future will be just some kind of steampunk sentimentality. The only desktop app that should be developed and upgraded is the browser. Web dev is a superior expression of division of labor, and regression management. Software dev is so increasingly worthless, the only viable platform for it is web, embedded specialties withstanding.