Print 33 comment(s) - last by vol7ron.. on Apr 2 at 12:05 AM

Total value of apps, at current market prices was round $700,000 USD

Around the year 2010, several bands of rogues looked to launch sites distributing pirated copies of paid apps on Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android operating system.  Among these was AppBucket.  By 2011 the site was picking up steam and admin posted to the group's Facebook, Inc. (FB) fan page:

[AppBucket] wants it to be f***in perfect.. it will be as most of it is done. Just need some finess.. emails coming sometime about it... ttyl followers who support us. As we have never been down. We don't socialize with the likes of the rest and are honestly better coders just we have lives like you  enjoy ur night...oh and f**k steve jobs

In March 2012 the admins bragged on Facebook:

Gdamn guys thks. Lol. Adding thousands of apps today. Added 400 paid apps, 10 hd games updated 7 game emulators and added some other shit last night. Today ill add over 1300 paid apps.

AppBucket gave users ye old "five finger discount".

But not long after that post, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began to get serious about Android piracy.  Appbucket and others tried to shuffle their servers to Europe, but the DOJ worked with French and Dutch authorities.  By August it had seized,, and  The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) posted its typical piracy seizure notice on the sites.

FBI Takedown

Also in Aug. 2012, the FBI executed nine search warrants across six different districts, seizing evidence from the sites' admins.  The last year and a half the FBI has been questioning some of these sites' administrators/owners and analyzing their hard drive.
This week, two of the pirates -- Nicholas Anthony Narbone, 26, of Orlando, Flor. (who allegedly was the leader of AppBucket) and Thomas Allen Dye, 21, of Jacksonville, Flor. -- pled guilty in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Nicholas Narbone
Nicholas Narbone, the alleged leader of the app pirates
[Image Source: Facebook; Fair Use clause TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107]

Authorities appeared to have an airtight case; having successfully completed thousands of downloads of pirate apps served directly from AppBucket.  Reportedly AppBucket alone accounted for more than a million app downloads with over 5,000 different apps at its peak.  In total these downloads represent roughly $700,000 USD in lost business to Google and developers, according to the FBI.
Two other men -- Kody Jon Peterson, 22, of Clermont, Fla. and Thomas Pace, 38, of Oregon City, Ore. of the SnappzMarket group -- are currently awaiting their day in court, having been also charged in Jan. 2014 alongside the AppBucket defendants.
U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates stated in a press release:

Copyright infringement discourages smart, innovative people from using their talents to create things that the rest of society can use and enjoy.  Theft is theft – whether the property taken is intellectual or tangible – and we will continue to prosecute those who steal copyrighted material.

AppBucket reportedly served 1 million pirated app downloads.

Acting Assistant Attorney General David A. O’Neil of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, adds:

These mark the first convictions secured by the Justice Department against those who illegally distribute counterfeit mobile apps.  These men trampled on the intellectual property rights of others when they and other members of the Appbucket group distributed more than one million copies of pirated apps.  The Criminal Division has made fighting intellectual property crime a top priority, and these convictions demonstrate our determination to prosecute those who undermine the innovations of others in new technologies.

As this is Mr. Narbone and Mr. Dye's first time journeying into prison, they are eligible for a maximum sentence of 5 years and a maximum fine of $250,000 USD under 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S. Code § 2319.

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice [1], [2]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Motoman on 3/28/2014 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 4
...and in the actual world, the true loss of revenue for the products involved --> $0

Piracy is wrong. If you don't want to pay for something, or can't afford to, do without. Or do with something else that's similar but cheap/free.

All the people in this world with pirated versions of Photoshop represent $0 lost to Adobe. If they couldn't get it for free, they wouldn't have it. The correct thing for them to do is to get GIMP or or something else...but the fact that they got a pirated copy of PS proves in no way that Adobe lost any money.

Same goes for anything else...even a single .mp3 that has a retail value of $.99. The fact that someone downloaded it when it was free in no way indicates that they would have paid for it if it wasn't available for free. They'd just somehow manage to live without having a copy of that song around.

All claims of "the industry lost $X to piracy" are LIES, and the people who speak them should be legally required to never speak again.

But seriously...piracy is bad, m'kay?

RE: Reality
By NellyFromMA on 3/28/2014 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
True story. Their punishment could have easily been probation with a restitution of $500-$1000 considering what they did (create a hub for pirated software).

In my opinion, that's WAY more proportionate a punishment for their crime.

RE: Reality
By dashrendar on 3/28/2014 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't sure whether there is sarcasm there or not. But if there isn't, then I am sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense.

If each and every Adobe Photoshop legitimate customer thought the same way that you did, not only would Adobe lose revenue, but they would be out of business.

You need to pay for it like the rest of the people are paying. End of story.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/28/14, Rating: -1
RE: Reality
By atechfan on 3/28/2014 3:25:31 PM , Rating: 4
Irrefutable truths usually have more evidence to back them up than "Motoman said so". There are lots of people who would have to purchase software for their work if pirated versions were not available. The fact that you think Gimp is even in the same league as Photoshop shows you don't have a clue.

People tend to steal stuff because they want it, not because it is available.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/28/2014 10:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you think Gimp is even in the same league as Photoshop shows you don't have a clue.

The fact that you think I said any such thing shows you need to revisit your ESL classes. I simply pointed out that GIMP is a free alternative to PS - I didn't say it was "as good." The fact of the matter though is that if you need to do graphic design work, and can't afford PS, GIMP is free. And realistically, will get the job done.

People tend to steal stuff because they want it, not because it is available.

I don't think you live in the real world. The *vast* majority of pirated stuff that people download, they do simply because they saw it on the torrent site and figured "why not." Personally, I know a large number of people with pirated PS on their computers...that they have no idea how to use, and no inclination to spend the time to learn it. But it's there...because it was available.

RE: Reality
By vol7ron on 3/29/2014 11:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
Been a while since I've posted on DT, but after reading this chain, I had to comment and to be concise: the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Motoman makes two points that are claimed to be irrefutable:
1. Adobe lost no money
2. If a person couldn't get something for free, they wouldn't have it

Regarding Adobe Lost No Money
I believe Motoman is stating that a person can't lose what they don't have. Adobe never had that money and there's no proof that they would have, so they didn't lose it. However, what he may not realize is that there is such a thing as a loss on future gains; again, that can't be proven, but it can be accounted for to some degree. For instance, if you cripple a construction worker, you can't prove that he/she would continue to work tomorrow, but by crippling him/her, you have guaranteed that they won't have the ability to work. There is some valuation formula when considering future loss and based on current potential. A similar concept is applied to opportunity costs when making economic choices.

Regarding Making Purchase that are no Longer Free
It's true that there are people that don't have an expendable income to pay for everything they want (self-included), but you must consider the many things that go into buying behavior. For instance, when making a purchasing decision, you evaluate the tradeoffs on where your money goes. You establish priorities and make choices (e.g., new computer vs adobe creative suite; ordering out vs buying groceries). There are what are called elasticities of demand and price points that all factor into a person's buying decisions. Just because a person is less likely to purchase something, does not mean they won't make sacrifices if they really want it and if an Adobe product is really that desirable, then perhaps it is worth the value that they charge (vs the alternative like Gimp) and the software engineers, who are supporting family and lives of their own may also deserve the fruits of their labor.

As for alternatives, just because there is a free "comparable" alternative, doesn't ensure there will always be free - or comparable - alternatives for other products. Even Gimp lacks features, so for basic editing maybe a photo editor can get by, but not for more advanced like features. Let's apply your argument to music, there are artists that freely distribute their songs compared to artists that prefer payment. I'll argue that despite both being "music", Karaoke Karen is not the same as Bob Dylan.

My Opinion
On the opposite end of the argument, I'm under the belief that Adobe needs to price their product in such a way that large businesses should pay a more hefty amount and at-home users shouldn't have to pay as much -- even their education prices are high. That's personal opinion though, but Adobe is free to estimate what they think their price curve is and decide where their max profit point is. But, a common example is seeing how when Microsoft dropped is price on its Windows software in half. Their sales shot up, which I have to believe is because more people were able to afford (and not pirate) the coveted Windows 7 OS.

On the same note, artists have seen more benefits by distributing free music -- word spreads faster and artists make more money from touring and higher ticket sales, they found a more profitable business model, which they didn't believe at first. Not to mention, in general, people are more likely to support and pay for something they actually like. has seen success in "Name Your Price" strategies -- I know I've paid for things on that site that I normally would not have purchased; in fact I still haven't used some of the software I've purchased, so the author did receive money they normally wouldn't have.

But I digressed, back to the point: without free torrents, sure some people would still not buy the product, but some would. I have been emailing Adobe somewhat routinely (once every 6 months) stating that they should start lowering their prices. Instead, they've went to this sh*tty annual-pricing, which I also don't like. I think if people have a problem with the Adobe pricing, they should be more vocal to Adobe to show that there is a demand, that just can't afford (or want to pay for) their current retail prices.

Sorry for the long-winded response,

RE: Reality
By jtemplin on 3/29/2014 11:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
See my comment below for a similar viewpoint as yours, but more succintly stated :)


RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/30/2014 11:34:59 AM , Rating: 1
You're both wrong. When something is available for free, people will take it for free. Even if it only cost $1 at a store.

If it wasn't available for free, you can make no assessment at all as to whether or not they'd actually have paid the $1 for it. They could either have gone without, or used some other legitimately free option.

Which is by nature what people would do. Your examples above do not provide accurate parallels to the issue of piracy.

RE: Reality
By vol7ron on 3/30/2014 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
When something is available for free, people will take it for free.

That is wrong. Sure it applies to hoarders and some types of people, but there are other people that don't take free things for many reasons. To name a couple:

Quality is sometimes inferred by price . A person may want a banana, see that it's free and not take it, thinking something's wrong with it; similar to the "you get what you pay for" idiom. On the other end, sometimes people may think there is something special about an overpriced good, a banana could be sitting right next to the free bin with a $5 price tag and a person may make a one-time purchase for discovery.
Merit, Justice and Philanthropy . Some people go out of their way to purchase (or donate) where they can because they feel that they should support people that are deserving. Just because something is "free" does not mean it didn't have a cost and just because something has a price, does not mean its price reflects its value.

The fact that people believe they should get something for nothing is a disservice to the world, but let's look at a museum as an example; one that does not have an entrance fee, but encourages a donation. Some people give $20, some people go in for free — your argument is saying that if the museum charged $5, the people that go in without donating would not pay the $5. In fact, that is pretty much what you said: "If it wasn't available for free, you can make no assessment at all as to whether or not they'd actually have paid the $1 for it." To be honest, you are correct — there's no way of determining that a person selected at random would pay; but there's also no way of determining that they wouldn't. And speaking from experience, people who download torrents often do it for others as well; perhaps people looking to purchase the software, but eventually don't because someone they know has a "copy".

The fact that I can draw on one real life example as proof where someone would have made the purchase gives my argument credibility, whereas your point is merely theoretical. The only thing I couldn't do is tell you definitively how many people would otherwise have purchased, which again, is generally up to the courts or some arbitrator to determine.

Your examples above do not provide accurate parallels to the issue of piracy.

I consider this flamebaiting and trolling.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Reality
By Dug on 3/31/2014 10:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
Photoshop is $10 a month. The complete CC is $50 a month. $20 for students and teachers.

You are saying that's too much for professional software?

If you can't afford that, you shouldn't be using professional software.
I like your comment that corporations should pay more. Really? If anything, they should be paying less because they have an actual need and larger user base than individuals. Plus it's almost guaranteed income compared to someone that thinks they need the software and don't even know what it does.

RE: Reality
By Dug on 3/31/2014 10:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention you are emailing Adobe to lower their prices? Maybe you should email every single software manufacturer out there. Oh wait, you said Gimp doesn't cut it. Then guess what, it's going to cost money. Same thing if you want a new car. Costs a little more than a car from a few years ago.
Email them and complain. I used to be able to buy a civic for under $10k. Not anymore. So why should Adobe lower their prices? 10 years ago you couldn't even get anything close to what Photoshop does today. So it's not a need. But you've decided it's too much?

RE: Reality
By vol7ron on 4/2/2014 12:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
You're comparing the software market to car manufacturing? You obviously have no knowledge of either. You lack information about safety regulations, material costs, global economies, and marginal improvements (in either industry).

Yes, I email Adobe letting them know of something their marketing team should know. Many companies would love to get that kind of feedback from it's customers, especially from would-be customers; in fact, many companies pay for that kind of research. Other companies issue surveys and try to collect that information. And just to tie this back to your weak new-car comparison, I do email car dealers for lower rates — I don't pay retail car prices. Are you suggesting that software companies also adopt such policies? I'm confused.

You obviously don't understand the basic principles of economics. As a two second primer, there is something called a supply and demand curve along a price and quantity axis. In this case, supply and quantity are negligible, so it's really price that determines demand. Just because you are willing to pay for a product at a higher price point, doesn't mean that the majority of other people are willing to. The question is if you bring the price down, can you generate more in new business to create additional profit? I'm saying yes. There are lots of people that share software or steal it, that would otherwise pay and would more than offset the higher price point.

I'm saying I'm one of the people that is not willing to pay for their old rate or their new pricing strategy. Am I saying the price was too high for everyone? No. Am I saying I couldn't afford to pay the old price? No. I've got friends that have it and have access at work, so I still find a means to use it when I need it. What I am saying is that its possible that Adobe would generate more than double its clientele by halving its (old) price. — As said in the other reply, I'm not a fan of subscription-based payments.

RE: Reality
By vol7ron on 4/1/2014 11:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you're an advocate of subscription-based pricing, you're talking to the wrong person. I rather purchase software outright, let it sit on my machine for however long before finally delving into it, free of mind that I'm paying some "forever-pricing".

Microsoft tried to do it with Office 365, Adobe is trying to do it with Photoshop. In both cases I'm reading "we failed to sell at the prices we were charging, we're going to see if we can generate new business by providing a lower, yet continual, introductory price." I see you disagreeing with that, but it's the true. People were having to save up to pay $300-$400 for Office.

"You are saying that's too much for professional software?"
Nope, saying that's too much for what I was willing to pay and too much for people that are on the fence (downloading torrents) would pay. I'm specifically referencing the older creative suite, flat-rate pricing. As I said above, I see the monthly payment to be a joke, it doesn't suit my interests -- I would have rather paid $500-1000 for the CS, rather than $2000-3000 that it was, regardless of how useful or professional you deem it to be. You act as if professional software has no price point — if that's the case, they should charge $1M for it. No, everything has a price point and there's no such thing as "professional" software, there's only software that accommodates your interests.

"If you can't afford that, you shouldn't be using professional software."
It's not about affordability and that is the most absurd statement I've heard in this thread. I like to live stress free and maximize my profits. Adobe's less-featured version (like Gimp) doesn't suit all my needs, that doesn't mean I should have to go through the hassle of registering to use their service for a limited time, every time I think I may need it for the extra features — that's a headache and ridiculous.

Regarding Corporation Prices
If you're using the software to make money, you're using it for other than personal use and generating a means to pay more for a product that you depend on. That is capitalism at its finest. If you're using it for home/personal use, then why would you want the average Joe, to pay more than a corporation. That makes no sense at all. Someone that has a greater need should not be paying less for something HAHA that is so ridiculous. "I can see you really need this Gold, so you can have it at half the cost."
If you're insinuating that I don't know what Photoshop or After Effects and don't know how it compares to Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Draw, Sony Vegas, etc. then you're sorely mistaken and shouldn't jump to such conclusions, just like I won't jump to the conclusion that you might work or know someone that works for Adobe.

RE: Reality
By 1prophet on 3/28/2014 6:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
That depends, someone pirating something for personal use probably wouldn't have it if they had to buy it,

but losses by businesses using pirated/unlicensed software can be quantified,

many companies have gotten busted by the BSA for using pirated or unlicensed copies of software and at the end of the day, they had to buy them plus penalties because they needed the software.

RE: Reality
By jtemplin on 3/29/2014 10:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously every single copy of pirated download does not prove that each of those people would have paid for the legit product. However its just as foolish to claim that NONE of them would have either!

The question is: what fraction of the total # of pirate downloads "converts" into legitimate purchases if said pirated material was not available.

I suspect the number would surprise you. Yes there is no way to determine the intentions of the user based on any SINGLE download. But just like in any kind of population, despite the individual differences there are higher order patterns. A certain % of people would never pay period and would always do without or get the free alternative. However there is another fraction of people (could be the same person on a different day too) who WOULD spend the money if the pirated version was not available.

Why do you assume everyone who pirates is just dicking around on a torrent site? I know PLENTY of college students and young professionals who need a certain software and could eat the cost if necessary but since a pirated version is available choose to save their extremely limited/Mom&Dad $ by pirating.

RE: Reality
By amanojaku on 3/28/2014 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman's point is that the people who are pirating would never have paid for it in the first place, so the creators haven't lost anything. That argument, while sensible on the surface, is flawed.

First of all, many people make a living off of the software they pirate. I know many web developers and the like who use pirated Photoshop. Most of those guys are still too poor to afford Photoshop, but not all of them are so revenue is indeed lost.

Secondly, the downloaders are profiting off of their pirated software and undermining their industries. Since the pirates aren't paying for anything, they're offering their services or goods at lower-than-industry fees. This forces legitimate buyers of software to lower their fees, in some cases to the point where they have to abandon their market altogether. Why would you pay artist A $5,000 for a project when you can pay artist B $500 for the project, with the difference being A paid for a ton of software that B got for free? Of course, you don't know this, so you think A is ripping you off, when it's B who is deceitful.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/28/2014 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, many people make a living off of the software they pirate. I know many web developers and the like who use pirated Photoshop. Most of those guys are still too poor to afford Photoshop, but not all of them are so revenue is indeed lost.

Prove it. If PS was never available to these guys, who are too cheap to pay for the software they need to do their jobs, I'm guessing they'd use GIMP instead. Or some retail product that's a lot cheaper, like CorelDraw.

Since the pirates aren't paying for anything, they're offering their services or goods at lower-than-industry fees.

Bullsh1t. At the end of the day, even if you saved $1,000 (or whatever) by not buying PS, that's a one-time expenditure that has a negligible effect on your long-term cash flow. It doesn't make any material difference to what kind of prices you charge for your services. It just kind of makes you a douchebag.

RE: Reality
By amanojaku on 3/28/2014 1:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Prove it. If PS was never available to these guys, who are too cheap to pay for the software they need to do their jobs, I'm guessing they'd use GIMP instead. Or some retail product that's a lot cheaper, like CorelDraw.
I'll throw that back in your face: you say piracy doesn't lead to lost revenue, so prove it. Neither of us can provide numbers because no one knows the scope of piracy, or the demographics of pirates. However, I DID say that I personally know of people who COULD buy the software they pirate. I'm not providing names and W-2's or 1099's, however. You're fooling yourself if you think all pirates are poor; many are just cheap.

Additionally, you lose a lot of credibility when you compare Photoshop to GIMP and CorelDraw...
At the end of the day, even if you saved $1,000 (or whatever) by not buying PS, that's a one-time expenditure that has a negligible effect on your long-term cash flow. It doesn't make any material difference to what kind of prices you charge for your services.
If you knew anything about professional industries, you'd know that people rarely have one tool. People who have Photoshop also have Final Cut or Premier, Maya or SoftImage, Illustrator or Freehand, Quark or InDesign, etc... Software costs can easily add up to $10,000 or more per user. And it's not a one-time cost. You need support, which is often an additional cost (especially if you need extended or critical support), renewals, etc... This isn't just limited to artists, either, but artists and entrepreneurs are especially hit hard since money from projects doesn't come in as regularly as a paycheck from an employer.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/28/2014 2:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. OK industry shill, there's clearly no point in discussing this with you further. You keep on making up whatever you want...reality is reality.

RE: Reality
By Fritzr on 3/30/2014 10:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry you said it yourself. The pirate users DO see value in PhotoShop ... if they did not want to use it the would use GIMP instead.

In short, many of those are lost customers who decided to go with the 5 finger discount and use the money saved for something else.

Of course they have the option of using GIMP and other free software ... the fact that they don't should tell you that there is money owed to the developers who spent their time trying to make a living.

RE: Reality
By Motoman on 3/30/2014 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
The pirate users DO see value in PhotoShop ... if they did not want to use it the would use GIMP instead.

They see value in it at the price of free. If they had to pay full retail, with no free option available, you can make no claim at all about them going ahead and forking over the cash, instead of use something else that is naturally free (or very cheap) like GIMP.

Of course they have the option of using GIMP and other free software ... the fact that they don't should tell you that there is money owed to the developers who spent their time trying to make a living.

No, it categorically does not, and you've got serious cognitive issues if you can't see that. There is absolutely, positively, irrefutably no way to assert that people with a pirated version of PS would have bought a legitimate copy of the pirate version wasn't available. It's that simple. And to pretend that the opposite is true is simply a bald-faced lie.

By NellyFromMA on 3/28/2014 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, just what we need... further punishment and imprisonment of young American tech-saavy individuals.

This has worked out very well for our standing internationally in the tech world so far, I'm sure it will continue to be a great way to foster and bolster domestic interest in technical skills.


These guys are young. Yeah, they look like super-thug wannabes, but so don't most all kids their age. I did when I was their age...

That they had enough interest and know-how to do this at all seems they were actually bright guys who made a poor choice. They probably were having a hard time landing jobs in the tech space to begin with or didn't even know how to take the right steps towards doing so.

I know all to well what that experience is like when you are just becoming an adult and trying to land your first career-specific job.

While China and other countries successfully instill interest in their youths for technical skills, America applies archaic thought processes and employs barbaric punishments for first time offenders that, for all we know, were probably fantastic candidates for the workforce, public or private.

I love America, being American and all... But this is the next silliest war to wage next to the war on drugs that comes to my mind. What a senseless waste of talent by our judicial system, and hence, government. We really need to catch up...

To sum up: Stealing is bad; Disproportionately punishing the youth with the skills needed to rise the country back to prominence: exponentially worse.

It didn't work in the 80's or the 90's or this passed decade. What's the chances its going to help us now?

RE: Lols
By SteelRing on 3/28/2014 1:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
Getting caught should speak volumes about your tech-saviness.

RE: Lols
By NellyFromMA on 3/31/2014 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
There's a universe in between being more clandestine than the NSA-assisted FBI and being quite handy network wise. Are you implying you could have done better in terms of detection? Or just making it clear you aren't tech-saavy by your own description then?

I just wait....
By dxf2891 on 3/28/2014 3:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
for Amazon to post its free app a day. That's free! Wait.... is this Amazon's insidious plot to catch me up in some intellectual property theft ring? Oh No!!!!! Presses hidden red button on the button of phone. ***This phone will self destruct in 30 seconds!***

In Reclaimer Land....
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/14, Rating: -1
RE: In Reclaimer Land....
By atechfan on 3/28/2014 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 1
I shouldn't be surprised that someone who is proud that he doesn't buy music thinks this way. Of course, stealing is the Android way. That explains why Android app devs make almost no money for their apps, while Apple and even Windows Phone devs are doing well.

RE: In Reclaimer Land....
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2014 11:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
I shouldn't be surprised that you have no sense of humor :(

Come on buddy, lighten up a little. You seriously trying to turn this into ANOTHER smartphone OS debate? Wtf guy...

RE: In Reclaimer Land....
By atechfan on 3/28/2014 3:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
When you are actually funny, I'll laugh.

RE: In Reclaimer Land....
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2014 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
So you're a big fan of Steve Jobs then, I take it?

RE: In Reclaimer Land....
By atechfan on 3/30/2014 12:17:22 PM , Rating: 1
No, I'm saying "Fuck Steve Jobs" isn't funny. There is nothing clever or witty about it. Just adding the word "fuck" stops being funny for most people at about grade 6 or so. Not sure why I am bothering to try to explain this though. You are from the country that thinks Chris Rock is funny.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki