Why is that? There is less money in circulation, so less chance you'll get any. Are they making wiser choices? So if you're company is a wise choice you'll get funding?
Its actually more on the creative side. SoundCloud has such a low barrier to posting and acts more as a sort of Twitter or YouTube than a playlist maker. It allows culture to form around the community of SoundCloud, not just fans that you advertise directly.
I think that was their biggest mistake. They grew too fast and took too much money before they had any clear way to make money. If it was ran as a sustainable business, maybe it would be around for the next 5 years.
I really enjoy how most of the abstracts in these papers are more like ELI5s, or just plain understandable. I think having an understandable abstract would be valuable for many papers to have to make large complex sciences understandable for people not in the field. Would there be any downside? The only one I can think of is that conclusions could sound more convicting in a simplified summary.
Having understandable abstracts is indeed very important for the success of a paper and scientists try very hard to come up with good abstracts. Writing the abstract is one of the harder parts of writing the paper. However, what you find understandable and what an expert in the field finds understandable is often very different.
I can see that by using Microsoft CodePush or similar. But you can't change the description, in app purchases or title without going through the approval process again.
This is what I was going to ask. It looks very similar and operates (to user at least) the same way. I wonder if they could support each other by making the sites accessible from either service.
