Building anything that rivals Wordpress in terms of features, extensibility and ease of use is a massive undertaking.
Building a CMS is relatively easy.
Building a CMS that does everything WP does is difficult.
Building a CMS that does everything WP does whilst still remaining easy to use is incredibly difficult.
There are plenty of blog alternatives out there - but few that you can turn into virtually any other kind of system in just a few clicks. WP can be turned into a whole host of other 'types' of website and you don't need to know anything particularly technical in order to do it.
Even installing Wordpress itself is just a few clicks (depending on your hosting provider).
WP is terrible in lots of ways, but in the ways that most people care about, it does a reasonable-to-good job.
You don't need it, but it may come in handy. I would definitely recommend achieving your degree if you are able to eventually - there's no way it can hurt you and it can only really help you.
I also didn't realise at the time how much I'd actually gained from my degree until several years into my career - not sure how it works in the US but I imagine it's pretty similar to the UK - being able to choose which modules etc you take means you can round out your education and expand it into other areas which may help you depending on which direction you want to take your career.
Generally speaking my principle is that any education is worthwhile. Software development isn't an industry which technically requires a degree since barrier to entry is relatively low and there are countless free educational resources out there anyway. That being said, having a formal qualification in the subject will increase your visibility somewhat - it's still true that a degree carries weight regardless of the subject.
I can't help but feel that all of these complaints about low pay etc are just a symptom of the new reality. I don't really understand what people are expecting here. Distribution costs are minimal, audience is (kind-of) locked-in, discovery is relatively simple. The risk is almost entirely on Spotify's end of things, rather than the artists. Yes, without the artists, Spotify doesn't have a business - but without digital streaming services like Spotify, users could easily end up under an iTunes monopoly which probably wouldn't be good for anybody (although I believe - may be wrong, but please correct me - that iTunes does give artists a better deal currently?). The world is going digital, and people want to stream stuff. That's just a fact. Sure, many people will always buy CDs and LPs, but there being 'no money' in recording music is hardly a new phenomenon - people have complained about it for years before digital streaming was even a thing.
I really do have sympathy that there isn't much money in recorded music, but I do struggle to find a justification for why artists seem to think Spotify should be paying them more other than the fact that they just 'want' it and need to make a living. I understand that completely - and honestly I'd probably pay a higher price for Spotify if they demanded it and the extra money went to artists.
I think the problem is this: the music industry in general has exploited artists for years. It is not a business that works in the artist's favour, unless those artists are extremely popular (and even then, labels can seriously fuck artists over if they want to). Outside of the superstars, musicians may (not always, but often) fare better when they organise their own affairs - live performances, commissions for work, appearances, media, collaborations etc. They probably won't get super-rich doing this, but it could be a decent income for the right artists. What we have instead is a situation where artists create music for a (more or less) one time cost (recording, mastering, equipment, studio time etc) and then hope to make the money back through physical sales, royalties, and performances. The problem, I feel, is that the initial costs of production are still high, but the distribution costs are now incredibly low, which means end-consumers are reluctant to pay higher prices. I don't see any way around this other than altering the nature of the business itself. If production is always going to be a costly affair in the music world, then income from royalties through services like Spotify are destined to be considered low.
I honestly think there's no real hope for any significant increase in income through digital services. Why should there be? There's no technical reason to increase fees - distribution gets cheaper all the time. The only way to increase royalty payments generally is to either cut into profits, or pass the increase on to the customer - neither of which are sensible business decisions unless Spotify's hand is forced.
We don't really have a profitable relationship with music - the value we attach to a single track on iTunes or Spotify doesn't reflect at all the costs to the artist - but unless artists can convince consumers to start paying a lot more, I just don't think they'll see significant returns from recorded music any time in the forseeable future. It's just not an industry that pays particularly well. Production costs are high, distribution costs are low. Unless we alter the way music is produced, performed, and experienced, people won't feel like paying more gives them any extra value. It's an uphill battle.
I wish things were better for artists, but I just don't see a way out of this is that doesn't involve massively increasing price at the point of consumption.
IANAL, but does this just mean that you can use and amend their work, but you can't create the same basic thing from scratch and claim that you created it?
Can't say I'm surprised - the GIMP is great if you can avoid all of its glaring UX flaws. Using it is a gigantic pain - it is simply my 'last resort' when I am unable to do something quickly in a less powerful but easier to use piece of software.
This pops up every few weeks / months and not once have I seen anything tangible from them. They refuse to offer a 'try-before-you-buy' demo and there's no way to actually see the tech work. You have to pay for a year's subscription, with no release date for the actual product other than 'late spring', with e-commerce coming 'late 2015'.
I would have a lot more confidence in handing over my money if they'd release something that people could actually look at and determine whether it's worth the price. The pre-order price is not really that expensive, but they have over 20k pre-paid subscribers waiting for anything with no visibility of actual progress other than slick marketing.
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but this just feels like it's going to be a disappointment.
> The idea behind the app is this - every question in this world can be asked in a simple short way, even complex questions can be asked in multiple short questions. The same goes with answers - every answer can be broken into multiple short answers.
Are you sure this is actually true, or is it just wishful thinking?
Complicated concepts cannot always be distilled into 140 characters, and not all questions can be answered in such a short space or indeed, in such a format. I would imagine that the vast majority of the questions and answers will be trivial, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that for any detail, users will need to look elsewhere.
This feels basically like one of those Twitter Poll apps, although many (most?) charge for their features.
I think jelly focuses on getting answers to each and every question posted. But the main focus of +ask is to identify the most interesting/pressing questions we have in the society and to get the public opinion for them.
The identification of those questions-worth-asking-the-public happens by the usage of '+ask' button by the users.
> Are you sure this is actually true, or is it just wishful thinking?
Powatom, it is not completely true. It can be true only theoretically. You are right when you said that most of the questions asked by most of the people in our daily lives are trivial and can be answered in a simple manner without elaboration.
Building a CMS is relatively easy.
Building a CMS that does everything WP does is difficult.
Building a CMS that does everything WP does whilst still remaining easy to use is incredibly difficult.
There are plenty of blog alternatives out there - but few that you can turn into virtually any other kind of system in just a few clicks. WP can be turned into a whole host of other 'types' of website and you don't need to know anything particularly technical in order to do it.
Even installing Wordpress itself is just a few clicks (depending on your hosting provider).
WP is terrible in lots of ways, but in the ways that most people care about, it does a reasonable-to-good job.