2 ms·
The author's argument is a total non-sequitur. The whole "mental block" about sites like YouTube and Flickr was that DEVELOPERS couldn't imagine having to pay
by tophat02 18y ago
The author's argument is a total non-sequitur. The whole "mental block" about sites like YouTube and Flickr was that DEVELOPERS couldn't imagine having to pay for such outrageous bandwidth usage (or that they'd even be able to find a place to host the site, for that matter).
He then goes on to equate this to developers not wanting to have their users download 64MB runtimes or 2GB IDEs. These two things are entirely different.
A developer knows that, while Joe User may have no problem waiting for a 500MB video of some chick topless to download, the same user isn't going to want to wait to download a 50MB installer for a program that makes Bingo cards.
- patio11 18y agothe same user isn't going to want to wait to download a 50MB installer for a program that makes Bingo cards. As something of the resident expert on this topic, let me tell you: users are certainly willing to wait for a 12MB installer for a program that makes bingo cards. It actually converts (very marginally) better than the 500kb installer which needs Java as a pre-req.
- tophat02 18y agoHehe, I actually had you in mind when I wrote that :)