Subscription is not about app ownership, but mostly running the infra. AI is going to make basically everything even more expensive and subscription based.
Yeah. There's a power law distribution in successful apps. The valuable ones wrap content, networks, products your enterprise is subscribed to, or at least rank ahead of similar themed games or an abundance of free with ads clones in an App Store as the "everybody uses this, it just works and you can share with them too" solution.
Sucks for the todo-list-for-x and pretty basic game app creators to have even more competition, but they weren't making bank from subscriptions anyway
I empathize deeply as I was a few times in a similarly complicated situation. I know, posts like this arent about seeking "feedback" but simply releasing pressure, and thats 100% valid.
That said, one thing I learned from my own experience was to stop pointing fingers (build up badblood and seeking conflicts) and instead focus on the hard lessons about my own mistakes(learning!). I wish you the best in your next chapter. The path to becoming a good manager/colleague is never ending and demanding and its evident you want to be one ... Goodluck!
Ha, thanks for the feedback! People have made a few points about the styling, it definitely needs a harder look. Maybe a silly question but which do you find worse, the blue color or the underlines?
Companies charge what the market can bear, not based on their costs. Certainly they will often use some multiplier of their costs as a starting point, and they can't sustainably charge below their costs. But if they double the price of the product and lose more than half of their customers, that's a failure to set pricing properly.
Consider the reverse direction: if a company can decrease costs, they will usually pocket the extra profit, not reduce the price they charge. Price cuts usually only happen for one of two reasons: 1) to avoid losing customers to another company that is charging less (or to entice customers of another company that's charging the same), or 2) to capture more profit if they'll earn more customers at a lower price than they'll lose due to the lower per-unit profit. (Yes, there are other reasons, but these seem to be the main ones.
For goods that are not essential to life, prices are set based on what people are willing to pay vs. how many units can be sold at that price, with the cost as a floor (absent a policy of using a product as a loss leader).
Server will store encrypted blob and its hash/etag.
Client before upload of data, check for hash/etag of blob he originally fetched. If blob on server has different one, it will download it, decrypt, patch new data on existing one, encrypt and reupload.
Whats the catch?
AES is hardware accelerated on the most devices - so with all the ops it will be significantly faster than any homomorphic enc nowadays.
I too was wondering the same thing. FHE is cool tech, but this seems to me to be a bad application of it since it will undoubtedly be less efficient.
FHE is useful when trying to compute on data from various sources who all mutually want to keep some information secret. For example, Apple's use of FHE to categorize photos [1]. In this case all the server is really doing is "compressing" for lack of a better word, the change sets, so each offline client doesn't need to sync every message since they are already merged by the server.
If all you want is to keep a synchronizing server in the dark, but all clients can be trusted with the unencrypted data, traditional key exchange and symmetric encryption should suffice.
Your point is based on wrong assumptions.