The Artificial Life of the App Store 106
mikejuk writes "How does the Apple App Store actually work? What is the best strategy to employ if you want to get some users and make some money? There are some pointers on how it all works from an unusual source — artificial life. A pair of researchers Soo Ling Lim and Peter Bentley from University College London, set up an artificial life simulation of the app store's ecosystem. They created app developers with strategies such as — innovate, copy other apps, create useless variations on a basic app or try and optimize the app you have. What they found, among other things, was that the CopyCat strategy was on average the best. When they allow the strategies to compete and developer agents to swap then the use of the CopyCat fell to only 10%. The reason — more than 10% CopyCats resulted in nothing new to copy!"
Perhaps they can... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they can simulate how to make slashdot summaries make sense next?
Re: (Score:1)
That sort of translation technology doesn't exist, as of yet.
Re:Perhaps they can... (Score:5, Informative)
This one makes a decent amount of sense to me, though I did do previous work in artificial life simulators...
Effectively, they built a simulation of the app store, and filled it with developers following several different strategies, and presumably a feedback function that models expected consumer behavior. The simulation was left to run, and interesting results were gathered. TFA is actually a rather well-written explanation that's worth reading.
Re:Perhaps they can... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they can simulate how to make slashdot summaries make sense next?
Seriously, if you can't understand this one, go play on facebook or whatever the kids are doing these days. Your life is wasted here, as is a fraction of ours for reading your inane drivel.
Re: (Score:3)
We do get the privilege of using more than 160 chars here kiddos. Time to work on the parseable sentences.
Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course a copycat can be minimum efford maximum profit in a simplified model, but this strongly depends on the calculation of the fitness-function. I think it can be hard to match the real world fitness-function, because some of the factors that are relevant to an actual user are hard to calculate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's more than one utility function. For example, if wrote an app I would not expect to profit, it would be for fun. Thus I'd give it away for free or a dollar. Someone else might be hoping to make a living at it. too bad.
Re:Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's more than one utility function. For example, if wrote an app I would not expect to profit, it would be for fun. Thus I'd give it away for free or a dollar. Someone else might be hoping to make a living at it. too bad.
This simulation was built to identify profit models, not to maximize developer happiness. But the two are related, and profit will be an element everyone can measure.
Consider if the app you created turned out to be really fun and truly innovative, and it went viral and sold five hundred thousand copies at $0.99.
If nothing else, you'd learn that half a million users can be awfully demanding. You might find yourself mired in support requests, and have to decide whether or not you can support it yourself or if you want to sell it to a game company so they can manage it. If nothing else, you might be surprised when you discover you have to pay taxes on a whole lot more income than you thought. The point is that at some financial threshold, you will probably have to take it seriously. My threshold might be higher or lower than yours, but in this simulation, it doesn't really matter. It would change your personal view of profiting from your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You make a great point.
Because nobody in the history of humanity has ever spent $748 in a single year ($64 a month) on a hobby before. EVER.
(You realize that your argument is equally retarded for the standard Open Source dev model, too, right?)
Re: (Score:3)
The "not for profit" part of the previous post suggest he would not recoup his costs, nor would he expect to.
Not for profit defined (Score:1)
Re:Not for profit defined (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what it generally means in the US. A "not for profit" here is literally an organization that does some function, usually charitable or community service, that is not intended to make a profit. In fact, I believe they are legally prohibited from making a profit if they wish to maintain their special tax status.
Re: (Score:1)
A "not for profit" here is literally an organization that does some function, usually charitable or community service, that is not intended to make a profit.
Yet they still have expenses, such as labor, materials, and utilities, and they can and do charge for products or services to cover these expenses. To an NPO, I'll grant that salaries are a far greater expense than the Macs and developer certificate for the iOS app development team, unlike in the case of a hobbyist.
In fact, I believe they are legally prohibited from making a profit
And the mechanism of this prohibition is as I described. Or as Wikipedia's article about NPOs puts it: "While not-for-profit organizations are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be
Re:Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:4, Informative)
There's more than one utility function. For example, if wrote an app I would not expect to profit, it would be for fun. Thus I'd give it away for free or a dollar. Someone else might be hoping to make a living at it. too bad.
Too bad? If you're not meaning for the customer/end-user, I'd wager you never wrote any such app; or any OSS app, for that matter. And that those who tagged you as insightful haven't either.
In the real world, app development is just the beginning. Unless you decide to accept no feedback whatsoever, which is a losing proposition, you're in for a lot more feedback, emails and/or forum posts than you ever wish you'll ever read in your entire lifetime if you're even remotely successful. It's absolutely insane. Your success will destroy you unless you've an adequate means to scale -- whether monetization or extra funding.
So here you are, quacking that you'd happily share an app. For free. You'll keep your day job as you do. Someone out there actually wants to make a living off of a similar app. But he or she will get less or no business because you released that -- soon to be unsupported -- app at in an inadequately low price point.
Look... It's one thing to be competing with a Chinese team who can field $500/month coders to support their app, or with crap hobbyists who only have a slight clue of what they're doing. Those are mostly manageable in practice. It's an entirely different thing to compete with hobbyists who distribute good products without any interest in having a sustainable business.
Think of it this way: for every $100/month "cool, I got some pocket money I barely couldn't care about" app out there, an actual person who does care might be losing his job. So please do yourself a favor, do that guy a favor, and -- most importantly, in the long term -- do the customer a favor, and don't release it unless you work out your business model first. Else you're just building a mine field for those who do care.
Re: (Score:2)
Look... It's one thing to be competing with a Chinese team who can field $500/month coders to support their app, or with crap hobbyists who only have a slight clue of what they're doing. Those are mostly manageable in practice. It's an entirely different thing to compete with hobbyists who distribute good products without any interest in having a sustainable business. [...] [they're] just building a mine field for those who do care.
You've misread your talking points, Mr. Ballmer. Free software is supposed to be a 'cancer', not a 'mine field'.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure this rant isn't about *real* free software, of the open-source variety. Rather, its about free-as-in-beer (or priced close enough to it) closed-source software, with an end-game that has it likely headed straight for abandonware.
Re: (Score:2)
This (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, don't take it personally... competing with a hobbyist who doesn't care much that isn't an issue. They fall behind in UX, maintenance, etc.
The trouble makers are that special breed of hobbyists who seem to have some kind of David vs Goliath point to make. It's to their credit, in a sense, and I don't mind it at all when they've a business model -- they're in business to stay and good for them if they're good at what they do.
But most don't have such a business plan. They learn the hard way that it's a lot
Re:Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if they included the idea that frequently it is the copycat that takes off, while the originator languishes in obscurity.
Re:Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is why I refuse to use any Zynga owned game. Even if they purchased the original rather than copy it, they'll use the profits to copy others.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Useful Fitness-Function? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you just trolling or do you not know about Zynga's practices [wikipedia.org]? Google them, they copy most of their game ideas, while filing suit [techcrunch.com] against anyone who copies one of their game ideas. They're completely amoral, or worse.
So few rules (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Never heard of it before. Had to google it. Ok, a Tetris knock-off 20+ years later? Tetris itself isn't even available for any modern platform.
As to your earlier questions about Linux and Mac OS X, they're not relevant. Unix [wikipedia.org] was widely available as source code and encouraged alternative implementations [wikipedia.org]. Mac OS X is derived from Mach, a BSD [wikipedia.org] variant. And Linux [wikipedia.org] started as a clean room implementation of MINIX [wikipedia.org], itself an independent implementation of the original AT&T Unix spec.
Re: (Score:3)
"Mac OS X is derived from Mach, a BSD [wikipedia.org] variant."
And that's what comes from getting al of your "knowledge" from Wikipedia. First, reread for comprehension. He didn't say Mac OS X, he said Mac OS, as in the original 1984 Mac OS that was NOT based in any way, shape, or form on Unix.
Mac OS 1.0 was based on original work and UI work done on the Lisa OS, and both drew heavily from work licensed from Xerox's work on the Alto (which Xerox later tried to market as the Star).
The original Windows code w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Mac OS/LISA were inspired by what they saw at Xerox PARC. However, if you've read up on those, the people who actually worked at PARC said that LISA/Mac went far beyond what they had done or envisioned. [wikipedia.org]
"the Apple work extended PARC's considerably, adding manipulatable icons, and drag&drop manipulation of objects in the file system (see Macintosh Finder) for example. A list of the improvements made by Apple, beyond the PARC interface, can be read at Folklore.org. [folklore.org]"
My knowledge doesn't come from Wikipedia, I've been in this industry for 30+ years. I just use Wikipedia to support my statements.
Re: (Score:2)
So? I've been in it since 1972 (40 years). Appeal to authority won't work here.
Changing the subject won't help either. The OP's comment was about using one thing because it was copied or based on another. Windows/Mac, Mac/Alto.
And if you're going to provide links to articles, you might avoid cherry-picking facts to prove your point, "There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of the Apple Lisa and Macintosh,
Re: (Score:2)
You wrote: And that's what comes from getting al of your "knowledge" from Wikipedia.
I replied: My knowledge doesn't come from Wikipedia, I've been in this industry for 30+ years. I just use Wikipedia to support my statements.
I didn't use an appeal to authority, you need to check your attitude and your definitions. A direct reply to your statement is not an "appeal to authority", I provided a fact that contradicts your statement.
I didn't cherry pick facts to prove my point. The facts I cited are sufficient to demonstrate that the Mac was not just a copy of the ideas from PARC, as implied by previous comments. Go back and re-read the entire thread. I never denied that the Mac was influenced by Xerox Alto, in fact, I began my resp
Re: (Score:2)
"I didn't use an appeal to authority."
Right, "My knowledge doesn't come from Wikipedia, I've been in this industry for 30+ years. " Which sets yourself up as the authority.
"Now, go annoy someone else."
Nah.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it establishes that my knowledge comes from experience, and that I cite wikipedia as backing, just like I stated. I made no claims about my expertise or authority, only that my knowledge comes from experience, not from Wikipedia as you asserted. If I wanted to set myself up as the authority, I would have referred you to my credentials.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, a Tetris knock-off 20+ years later?
The exclusive right that The Tetris Company claims has a 95 year term, not 20.
Tetris itself isn't even available for any modern platform.
TetrisFriends.com disagrees with you, as do the official Tetris app by EA for iOS and Tetris Axis for 3DS.
Mac OS X
What about Mac OS I, on the 128K Mac?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah but often the reason that happens is because of slight improvements in the new copy. And often those improvements were requested and ignored or dismissed from the original developer.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if they included the idea that frequently it is the copycat that takes off, while the originator languishes in obscurity.
First Mover Disadvantage is usually considered in simulations like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
In my simulation the best strategy was to take 30% of everyone's revenues.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your study is flawed. For many App Store developers, Apple gets much more than a mere 30% of the developer's revenue.
To develop and market a $0.99 or $1.99 app, the developer needs to drop many thousands of dollars on various pieces of Apple hardware, and then there's the annual fee that needs to be paid, too. And that's all in addition to the 30% you mention.
For every developer who does turn an actual profit, there are likely many thousands who suffer very significant losses, even if they try to deny it. Y
Re: (Score:2)
You should log in next time so we can help you with your sense of humor.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
That's no different than any other development model, or most other businesses. Starting a business is a risk, welcome to reality.
Re: (Score:1)
His point was it wasn't worth the risk. Not that all businesses don't have risk. The majority of people lose money. I sell free software. I make money. We develop little to nothing though. However we do fund it. Many of the developers whom write this free software are being rewarded. I rely on that software for which without it my business model doesn't work. Despite many competitors I have very little real competition. We are cornering the market in a sense without preventing competition. I probably make m
Re: (Score:2)
It's different to Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. To develop for Android, you still have to own/buy a computer, spend your time developing the software, and pay someone a commission to sell it. And you have no more guarantee that the program will sell. It's the same basic model and risk either way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, geeze. I was wondering when one of you guys would show up, and spew out your short-sighted, unrealistic nonsense. In fact, I think that the $3000 figure that the GP mentioned is likely much lower than the real amount.
First of all, doing any serious development on a Mac Mini, even with the 16 GB RAM upgrade, won't be pleasant. To be even remotely productive, at the very least you'll need to be getting a MacBook Pro. Realistically, you'll need one of the higher-end ones, so you'll be looking at spending at least $1500, if not significantly more. Keep in mind that that's the bare minimum. Most of the app developers I've worked with have insisted on using a Mac Pro. So that alone could easily consume the $3000 that the GP mentioned.
Second of all, you're going to need more than just an iPad 2. If you care even the slightest about your users' experience while using your app, you're going to want to test on at least the iPad 2, the iPad 3, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 4, and the iPhone 4S. And by "test", I mean on an actual device. That's the only responsible way to do it. So you're looking at significant expenditure there, to acquire at least one of each of those devices. This will be another $1000, if not a lot more.
Third of all, buying "refurb" or used devices is likely a very stupid idea, especially if you aren't buying from the most reliable sources. Sure, you'll save $20 now, but when the device shits out you'll be really screwed. You'll basically end up shelling out for another device, used or new, and it'll be costly. Sensible developers will buy all of their devices new.
Four of all, there are the yearly fees. They're actually pretty small, relative to the large hardware investments you'll have to make. They're still present, however.
So realistically, you'll be spending a lot more than $1200 a year. Your figure is laughably low, and clearly a value you shit out of your inexperienced ass. Had you any real experience, you wouldn't have made the comment you just did.
Like the GP says, and like you totally ignored, the biggest problem will be when you find out that your $4000-$6000 investment (not including whatever amount you value the time spent developing the app) to create 99 cent apps brings in only a few dollars of revenue each week. You'll have basically handed Apple a large sum of money buying devices and paying annual fees, all for no good reason. Apple wins, you lose.
You're confusing needs and wants. You can certainly get started with just a single Mac, phone, and iPad. Yes, you'll probably end up buying more gear from there, but that would be just fine to get started with.
You can also easily blow six grand on hardware and totally wash out because your $0.99 fart app doesn't sell as well as you thought. That's not the "Apple Tax" hurting your business margins; that's you being irrationally optimistic about your ROI.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
I must point out that you are missing one crucial factor - Just because your app doesn't sell(or does, for that matter), the hardware is still usable. You can always install Windows on your Mac and have a fully functional PC and develop for Windows(same with Linux, for that matter). You can also use that same machine as a gaming/internet box. So the real "apple tax" is more like $99/year + (cost of Mac - cost of equavlent Dell system) + cost of iDevice(and possibly +$100 for a copy of windows). Not quite as high as it might seem.
Disclaimer: I do not own any Apple products, and consider iDevices useless junk. But that doesn't mean I can't give credit where it is due.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way the re
Re: (Score:2)
If OP has to buy three iPhones, a couple of iPads, etc, etc, etc. then if you are developing for Android, you'll, of course, buy 18 kajillion phones and tablets.
No way that costs more than $6k.
Re: (Score:3)
To be even remotely productive, at the very least you'll need to be getting a MacBook Pro.
Because of course the MacBook has a much faster processor, oh wait it's only a smidge faster, with more cores, oh wait not if you buy the server version, with a faster disk, oh wait no it doesn't, and greater max RAM, oh wait no it doesn't...
Most of the app developers I've worked with have insisted on using a Mac Pro.
Until recently I was the only one I know that still did so. I sold my old 8-core Xeon 5300 Mac Pro and am pretty happy with my MacBook Pro now which has a slightly higher clock than a Mini but no other real advantage other than portability.
Third of all, buying "refurb" or used devices is likely a very stupid idea, especially if you aren't buying from the most reliable sources.
Refurbs come from Apple. Likel
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ha. If you require a Mac Pro to develop software for a phone you're doing something seriously wrong. Apple's dev tools work just fine on my old circa 2008 MacBook or old mini.
Yeah, you could buy a bunch of devices to test on, but if you're not a big company you can just get some friends to test for you.
Anyway, none of that is different than development for any other system.
Re: (Score:2)
I do my development on a 7 year old Macbook (not pro). It has 3.2 GB of usable RAM (4GB installed). I own a first-generation iPod Touch and iPad 1. If this were my business, I'd buy better (newer) hardware, but that would really just be gravy.
Re: (Score:1)
To develop and market a $0.99 or $1.99 app, the developer needs to drop many thousands of dollars on various pieces of Apple hardware, and then there's the annual fee that needs to be paid, too.
You need a computer anyway, so that cost is zero as far as factoring in how much it affects the amount you do/do not take in. And a used mac, at under $500 would do fine for iOS development.
The developer fee is just $100/year...
So all around you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
You need a computer anyway
You say this as if one doesn't already own a computer. The computer that's already on your desk and paid for won't work.
so that cost is zero
No, it's $200 for a second operating system on top of the cost of a Mac if you want to run the software that you already have.
The developer fee is just $100/year
"Just"?
Re: (Score:3)
You say this as if one doesn't already own a computer. The computer that's already on your desk and paid for won't work.
For most developers it will. Been to any technical conferences or colleges lately?
No, it's $200 for a second operating system on top of the cost of a Mac if you want to run the software that you already have.
Now you are making up $200 out of thin air.
"Just"?
Yep. That's a pretty small price for the resources you get, including all WWDC videos. It's low enough it blocks no-one that can a
Has Rose-Hulman gone Mac since I graduated? (Score:2)
Been to any technical conferences or colleges lately?
Not lately, but when I attended Rose-Hulman, I don't think I saw more than six Macs in dorms. Every student had the school-issued laptop, and it ran Windows.
Now you are making up $200 out of thin air.
MSRP for Windows 7 retail. (The OEM version isn't for Macs [microsoft.com].)
Why do you go full-retard? (Score:3)
Not lately, but when I attended Rose-HulmanMSRP for Windows 7 retail. (The OEM version isn't for Macs.)
You had to go full retard...
Why would you buy that?
That would assume you have Windows applications already you'd like to run. Which means YOU ALREADY OWN A WINDOWS BOX YOU CAN KEEP USING!
Retard.
The secondary level of mental damage you exhibit, the one that has you going FULL retard, is knowing you CAN run OEM Windows 7 copies under virtualization but insisting people know or care what the license says.
If not selling the PC to afford the Mac (Score:2)
Which means YOU ALREADY OWN A WINDOWS BOX YOU CAN KEEP USING!
Then please explain what you meant by the sentence "You need a computer anyway" in your previous comment [slashdot.org]. If we take for granted that one already owns a Windows box and is not selling it to afford the Mac, then the Mac is bought to run one application. Such an expense is perfectly justifiable for a day job, I'll grant, but tougher to explain to one's SO for a hobby-turned-business built with sweat equity in one's spare time. I will further grant that there is one situation where already owning a Mac is lik
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say I want to buy a copy of Windows, because it doesn't come with my Mac. I'm not even going to splurge for Ultimate, and settle for Windows 7 Home Premium. Newegg [newegg.com] has it for "$189.99 was: $199.99". Yes, you can get OEM versions for half that, but saying $200 for a Windows license is certainly not out of thin air.
No need (Score:2)
Let's say I want to buy a copy of Windows, because it doesn't come with my Mac.
At this point there are very few people indeed that require a Windows license. There is almost no software you cannot have now on the Mac, and as noted at this point most students get macs as first computers anyway so migration is really moot.
For applications rated garbage in Wine's AppDB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's $200 for a second operating system on top of the cost of a Mac if you want to run the software that you already have.
No it's not. It's at most $50 for VMWare, and then you use VMWare Converter to create a VM image from your current Windows OS install. Or, if you're an actual serious Windows developer, you're already running virtual machines anyway to control your environment, and you just copy them to your Mac--even better if they're on external drives ;-)
Not transferable (Score:2)
It's at most $50 for VMWare, and then you use VMWare Converter to create a VM image from your current Windows OS install.
Provided that your existing Windows OS install is retail, not OEM. If it's OEM, the license is not transferable to your Mac's motherboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent insightful. Just check out the Maemo 5(Nokia N900) community - many, many apps, at least 99% free. Most done as a hobby or because the dev needed that feature him/herself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Gentlemen, we see here a textbook example of homo sapiens capitalus in it's natural environment: shortly to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope that healthcare you can afford results in malpractice and kills you, bourgie scum.
I live in a country that has universal health care, you unfortunate and sad excuse for a human being.
Re:Parasitic infestation... (Score:4, Informative)
Try again. To be in the 1%, you must have an adjusted gross income of $343,927 [kiplinger.com] which would probably equate to an unadjusted family income of over $400,000. Not easily achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly they're parasites
Why do you limit yourself to humans? Aren't corporations [slashdot.org] treated [slashdot.org] like [slashdot.org] persons [slashdot.org]? (oh, my apologies, I guess they indeed are treated better [slashdot.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
They are not parasites. They are just lacking good accountants. Most rich people pay a far lower % of income tax than the man on the street, courtesy of tax minimisation planning and clever accountants.
Re: (Score:2)
One percent of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.
1% of the population is only paying 37% of the total income tax revenue collected by the government. Clearly they're parasites
The problem with your argument is that "taxable income" is defined as income subject to income tax. It does not include income from capital gains or investments. If you included that income into the total, you would find that the "income" break point to enter the top 1% is considerably higher than ~$350k, and that they "earn" considerably more than 17% of total income.
Also, a more appropriate measure for this resource inequality discussion is probably wealth, and the numbers [nytimes.com] for wealth inequality are much
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant that point - my source attributed the 200-250k figure to 2003 census data, the numbers appear to have changed.
Point still remains: even 343k per year is not exactly "fuck you" money, where you light your illegal cuban cigars with $100 bills while hookers serve you cocaine from solid gold spoons. The majority of that 1% is still largely educated professionals - engineers, doctors, lawyers, and the like, and small business owners. Not fat cat ceo's drinking the blood of underage sweatshop worker
Re: (Score:2)
I seem t
Re: (Score:2)
They're extracting value that would otherwise be lost to inefficiency and "friction" in the market. I'm not certain I'd declare them parasitic and unfit to exist - they serve a purpose, and there most definitely needs to be some oversight, but HFTs & algorithmic trading are not inherently evil (nor inherently good).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's the rub. Most of Warren Buffett's income is from investments, which are taxed at capital gains rates instead of income tax. Now, we COULD jack up the rates on investment income, but then you start squeezing the retirement savings of pretty much all of middle-class america who has a 401k or 403b - those are (will be) taxed as investment income when you start drawing down your retirement.
No, 401(k) income is taxed as regular income when you withdraw it (assuming you don't withdraw early in which case you pay additional penalties). But given that Cap Gain rates are lower than income tax rates (and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future), most people would welcome the scenario you suggest.
If you are really smart, and make less than ~$100k, you would put in the maximum you can into a Roth IRA so that you pay the income tax up front and get your withdrawals tax free - you get to avoi
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected - and I should have remembered that. As my only defense, it was late when I wrote that comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Top 1% earned 17% of the taxable income, and payed 37% of federal tax receipts. (From the Kiplinger's article linked above).
So are we to assume that you'd support reducing their taxes to 17% of federal tax receipts, and issuing them an apology for making them pay far more taxes than they should have been for so long? And what will you say to the lower ends of the tax scale who are paying FAR less in taxes - do you support increasing their taxes, too? Or are you advocating cutting taxes on the top end, an
Re: (Score:2)
So you use one weaselly term to avoid another weaselly term. How weaselly.
Let's assume then, that all income regardless of source is treated as taxable. Consider:
1) Capital gains taxes are only paid on income from investments, not total assets invested;
2) "regular folks" also pay capital gains taxes - more and more so since the ascendancy of Defined Contribution (401k, 403b) plans versus Defined Benefit (pension/annuity) plans; You going
Re: (Score:1)
There is an issue too with what should be universally accessible. If one argues healthcare (as many do), as long as that is not included, it requires a progressive tax, as spending is essentially regressive as a % of income.
Similarly the same argument could be made for roads, and was essentially one, with toll roads being fee are far between compared to times of old (I drive on 2 former turnpikes in my 9 mile commute).
One could go extreme and argue everyone should have a car (chicken in every pot, car in ev
Re: (Score:2)
That's something a little more approximately reasonable, but as you know, the devil's in the details. Where do you set the breakpoint to say "Anything over this is taxable?" Ask a hundred people, and you'll get a hundred different answers - and those answers will probably take the form of something like, "Tax anything higher than Respondent's Current Income + 10%."
While I
Re: (Score:1)
I thought median was a good defensible choice, no-matter what one makes (doesn't mean it's agreeable, just understandable).
But the ideal point on where will vary from person to person, not just on what people earn (self interest bias), but also on what people believe to be lower middle class lifestyle, and what is being provided for the money.
If healthcare (a regressive cost, $7k per person/ per year) were provided by government, then the income that starts getting taxed higher would be at a lower number, a
"Optimizer" improving apps does well (Score:2)
I suspect that what might be more interesting is the standard deviation of ending positions over many runs.
Re: (Score:2)
A graph without error bars is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, a graph without error bars is meaningless. From two runs they get different results so that tells us that there is variation but doesn't give us enough information to properly quantify it (to make error bars). So their graph is meaningless. Do the copy cats really do better, or was it just on one of the runs and they almost never survive? We don't know. Their results, as presented, are meaningless.
They obviously did run multiple simulation runs, and their paper may well quantify the variatio