The Dark Side of Digital Distribution

An anonymous reader writes "Game journalist Stuart Campbell has written an incisive piece on how the digital distribution model users have grown to know and love over the past several years still has some major problems that go beyond even the DRM dilemma. He provides an example of an app developer using very shady update techniques to screw over people who have legitimately purchased their app. Touch Racing Nitro, a retro racing game, launched to moderate success. After tinkering with price points to get the game to show up on the top download charts, the developers finally made it free for a period of four months. 'Then the sting came along. About a week ago (at time of writing), the game received an "update," which came with just four words of description – "Now Touch Racing Free!" As the game was already free, users could have been forgiven for thinking this wasn't much of a change. But in fact, the app thousands of them had paid up to £5 for had effectively just been stolen. Two of the game's three racing modes were now locked away behind IAP paywalls, and the entire game was disfigured with ruinous in-game advertising, which required yet another payment to remove.'"

Comments

Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

So what s the DRM dilemma? Whether to just not buy DRM products or whether to burn down the houses of those who make them?

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[calibre-not-output]

Neither of these is a dilemma. Any righteous person should feel the moral obligation to boycott DRM-inflicted products and inflict physical violence on the people who make them, their loved ones and their property.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[ackthpt]

Neither of these is a dilemma. Any righteous person should feel the moral obligation to boycott DRM-inflicted products and inflict physical violence on the people who make them, their loved ones and their property.

I certainly hope you are only joking about inflicting physical violence, etc. It is a vexing new model of business, which the best possible means of making displeasure known is the age-old Voting With Your Feet (or dollars) by walking away from anyone practicing such things. I'm a slow adopter on quite a few things, largely because of my elevating level of disappointment with the way people are deciding is appropriate for doing business - by wrecking something you have already paid for and are using.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[larry bagina]

This isn't a DRM problem, it's an upgrade removed previous functionality problem.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[causality]

which the best possible means of making displeasure known is the age-old Voting With Your Feet (or dollars) by walking away from anyone practicing such things. I'm a slow adopter on quite a few things, largely because of my elevating level of disappointment with the way people are deciding is appropriate for doing business - by wrecking something you have already paid for and are using.

You're right about "age-old". In fact I'm wondering what the news is here. That digital distribution is not abuse-proof or fraud-proof just like brick-and-mortar sales? That there are dishonest people with exploitative business practices? This has been going on in one form or another ever since the origin of barter and the later invention of currency.

How is this not another "... with a computer!" story?

The solution to this is to make such people notorious, so that potential customers think twice before doing business with them, same as any business that causes legitimate grievances and dissatisfied customers. Make them more famous for their terrible business practices than for any software they have created. Let them be the ones who fail while honest people with good business practices thrive. That's how you create an environment hostile to this sort of thing and select against it. It's just an iteration of that old saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[petermgreen]

In the old days if an upgrade removed functionality it was annoying but you could always reinstall from your original media and not install the updates (or install an older update since in the old days most devs made standalone update installers available) but with online activation and/or digital distribution systems that may no longer be an option.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Maxo-Texas]

Here is how it is different.

I sell you a book, car, TV, shirt, power drill. You pay a fair price for it.

Then with an update, I remove your book from your reader, limit your car to driving 30mph, your TV to only working with bluray content so you can't use your DVD's any more, remove the pocket from your shirt, and limit your power drill to using phillips head bits so you have to buy a nother drill for star, hex, and flat head bits.

You can't do those things. But with digitial updates, not only can you do it, it is happening already.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Cosgrach]

I agree that physical violence is appropriate in the case. If an update locks up an application that I have legally paid for and then demands yet more money to unlock it, I'd have to say that the developers need to be publically flogged and run out of town.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[dbet]

A boycott is an organized refusal to support a business. It's hard to organize in digital space. It's easy if it's say, a store in your neighborhood. Boycotts like this are a fantasy. You can refuse to buy, and suggest others do, but actual boycotts are near impossible. There's no way to stand in front of an app and tell people about to buy it what the problem is. Even bad reviews don't achieve this level of organization.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaannnnd welcome to the licensing model, which allows for legal theft.

Everything you mentioned above is an actual product, not a license to use the product....which nobody in their right mind would buy if they had a real alternative.

The problem is all of our new devices are being treated as if they are still ideas that need licensing, as if they never made it though a production line(ereaders, cell phones, etc), and somehow are different from any other tool you can buy. I realize they are more complicated tools, but tools nonetheless.

This isn't a problem with digital distribution, this is a problem with a lack of integrity, and a willingness to force others to suffer your bad ideas for your own profit. In any REAL free market, this shit would never fly. But we live in America, where an actual free market is as elusive as the Dodo.

It's a sad day for justice and equality when a guy who steals a small ticket item will see jail time, meanwhile these asshats who steal en masse will go without so much as a visit to the local police station.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[TheCRAIGGERS]

The solution to this is to make such people notorious, so that potential customers think twice before doing business with them, same as any business that causes legitimate grievances and dissatisfied customers.

In the non-digital world, this is a feasible approach. Opening a store and stocking merchandise are both expensive acts- a shopkeeper can't keep reopening his or her store repeatedly. Changing your name or moving doesn't help with this.

In the digital world, this is far harder. You have no stock. You have no manufacturing costs. Changing your name / the location of your store is a trivial matter ranging from completely free to taking back a few loads of bottles for deposit and buying a new dev license.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[causality]

I agree that physical violence is appropriate in the case. If an update locks up an application that I have legally paid for and then demands yet more money to unlock it, I'd have to say that the developers need to be publically flogged and run out of town.

Hypothetically speaking ... the funny thing about that, is when you won't tolerate this kind of behavior no matter what, when those who feel tempted to try it know that there is a certain and severe consequence, it does not result in more violence. It results in such people finding in the external world the restraint they failed to find within themselves. They are selfish, and rather than the nearly impossible task of (anyone other than them) changing that, you provide for them a selfish reason not to behave this way. It's a shitty alternative to them developing a human conscience, but it does work.

It's the same principle behind law. People who can govern themselves from a genuine, compassionate concern for their fellow man don't need external consequence to dictate their actions. Force or threat of force is for all the rest.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[noh8rz2]

Everything you mentioned above is an actual product, not a license to use the product....which nobody in their right mind would buy if they had a real alternative.

isn't that what car leases are all about? they are very popular.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[demonlapin]

A car lease is a long-term rental of a physical product, not a "license". Sometimes rental rather than purchase makes sense.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[demonlapin]

I haven't yet figured this out on Android (I haven't had to try) but there is actually a very easy solution for iOS.

Fairly often, you should check for updates for your apps in iTunes. Any apps that are replaced will have the old versions appear in the Recycle Bin on Windows. (Presumably in the Trash on OSX, don't have a Mac so can't tell.) Pull them out of it and store them in an "old apps" folder. If an "update" like this ever occurs, you can easily delete the app from iTunes and drop the old version in. It will work just fine.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Boycotting will not actually do anything useful in this context. Bitching loudly about it, now that actually does something. Take a look at what happened to Spore.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[ZombieBraintrust]

It works if your google, wikipedia or reddit. Then you can "boycott" buisnesses like Go Daddy.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Solandri]

I just revert to the old version of the app from the backup TitaniumBackup made. Then I unlink it from the market so it's never updated again.

Remember folks, Fair Use includes being able to make backups of software you buy. Exercise that right. The only time a company should be able to pull a bait and switch like this is if they're selling you a service for an annual or monthly fee. And there you can simply stop subscribing (in the case of cell phone contracts, you can quit before your contract is up without penalty).

I also run firewalls (DroidWall or LBE Privacy Guard) which let me turn off an app's network access. If the free version of a single-player game requires network access to run, that's a big red flag that I don't want to buy the pay version.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[MaWeiTao]

A boycott in a digital space is far easier to organize than for physical businesses. The problem is that people are not principled. Far too many people, especially in the gaming and tech world, feign indignation but hand over their money anyway. For every one person who commits to a boycott there are probably 10 who complain but buy it anyway and another 50 who don't care. And the extreme convenience of the web makes it so that people are even less likely to care. But it's fundamentally no different than what you'd find in the real world.

At least online you can get a movement organized to not only organize the boycott but call attention to the problem.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Pausanias]

Here's how to navigate this new DRM world. Have an app that you like? Do not update it. Be aware that if you update, you may lose everything.

On the iPhone, if you must update, find the physical copy of the app in your iTunes folder. Copy it somewhere safe. THEN update the app. If you don't like the upgraded version, delete it, drag the physical copy back to iTunes, and restore it. You're good to go again.

I'm sure there's an analogue of this on Android.

Point being, if you've got an app, it's up to YOU to maintain version history, because you can't trust developers any more. A disturbingly large fraction of app upgrades are actually downgrades in preparation of a for-pay upgrade, and you just can't see these coming. Of course, on a jailbroken iPhone, you have more options, such as update-hider, which allows you ignore upgrades selectively in the app store.

Jailbroken/rooted is always going to be the key to freedom in this new world. Hooray for the hard working people who make it possible (better yet, donate $$$ to them).

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Surt]

Voting with your dollars doesn't communicate WHY you made the decision not to buy, just that you made the decision. Burning their houses down and explaining why you did it on the news and in court makes that clear.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[sosume]

A license is the same as renting for an undetermined period - until the licencor decides to end 'support'. Most software for which I obtained a license doesn't work anymore. I think if the courts should have the same opinion, that there wouldn't be such a copyright mess.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[lehphyro]

But changing your name can make you lose some good reputation/respect you've built under the old name.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Darinbob]

This problem as described is exactly what DRM is, it does not go "beyond" DRM since the real purpose of is specifically to remove the end user's rights. The only new thing is with companies now trying to figure out how to take advantage of the fact that they rent games instead of sell games.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[gorzek]

Yes, but I don't think most people are willing to go to prison over their right to play non-DRMed games.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Darinbob]

Because DRM means you do not get sold an item, you are only rented that item. You do not own any games you buy this way and the company can take it all back at a moment's notice. And many of the customers don't care, they have voluntarily and in many cases gladly given up their rights in exchange for digital downloads or access to certain games not available elsewhere.

And if someone is renting something it make sense for them to actually get some sort of agreement or contract spelling out the terms of the rental, and it make sense to read the agreement instead of clicking yes quickly and later regretting it.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Surt]

Well then they're just dilettantes.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[tunapez]

Did anyone else find the fact that '1984' was the first book pulled from Kindle users hilariously ironic? Made me want to cue up some Yahoo Tunes and reminisce in silence. Alas, I didn't opt-in and all my digital content still works... even after the servers become unprofitable and go silent.
 
Too bad the next generation will not have the choices/rights some deem worth giving away in the name of 'convenience'. Just because you don't value your privacy doesn't mean (*) Corp, LLC doesn't.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[feepness]

Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?

You need to look up the definition of mediocre and consider how it relates to the statistical mode of the people you meet.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[alexborges]

Forget about a shady little outfit. The first Amazon kindle app on IOS incorrectly created extra "amazon accounts" and let you buy in-app. Customers like me, that ended up in this hell, have a single login, but two accounts. The result is that you can buy and read some things in your phone and you can buy and read some things in your other "kindles" (cloud, local mac or local windows), thus getting you all fucked over because you have to buy again even if you already had a book in one or the other account, and want to read it in the other.

Im not sure how pervasive is this, but I did get fucked by it. I will never buy amazon again. EVER.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Voting with your dollars does not work in this environment. The FakeAV industry proves this.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Culture20]

Take a look at what happened to Spore.

What happened to Spore?

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Once word got out that they were only going to allow 3 unlocks, then you'd have to call them to get a code, over thousand ppl went to Amazon and gave it a 1 star review. EA relaxed the rules a bit, expanding it to 5 unlocks plus another concession or two that I cannot recall at the moment.

I'll concede that they didn't get as far as teaching EA a lesson about bad DRM, but only a thousand people got them to take notice and quickly react. It'll certainly be on their mind for the next game. The thousands of people who didn't buy the game didn't cause a reaction at all.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Surt]

It's the lack of daily violence that has allowed interpersonal interaction to get so out of control. No one is afraid to screw over their neighbor in any legal way because if you hit them for it you'll be the one to get in trouble with the law. Either we can build a byzantine legal code, or we can acknowledge the need to be able to push back against jerks.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[thegarbz]

The only time a company should be able to pull a bait and switch like this is never as far as consumer protection laws are concerned

Is this an American developer? I mean for a country that is so incredibly sue happy this is the perfect fodder for a major lawsuit. Forget the voting with the wallet crap, or protecting yourself, just make an example of the developer.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[maxwell demon]

Actually I found it quite ironic that the ebook reader is called Kindle. What happens if you kindle a book?

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[ae1294]

Wait isn't this the PS3 dual boot bait-and-switch model????

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[mwvdlee]

You mean not to buy a DRM product or not to buy a DRM-less product that gets forcibly updated to DRM after you've paid for it?

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[ColdSam]

The simple solution is to not buy digital products from people you don't trust. Building a solid reputation does take time (and money) and is not so easily discarded. The problem is that people blindly spend a few bucks on companies with no reputation and then are shocked when those companies don't follow the highest standards of customer service.

This doesn't absolve those unethical companies of guilt, but it doesn't make me feel too sorry for those who choose not to patronize (reward) companies with good reputations. This is true in the digital world or the real world.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Penguinisto]

Your sermon doesn't make his point any less correct.

On an objective level men (generally) behaved like gentlemen a century ago, because not doing so ran the risk of injury or death by the offended party and/or that party's spouse. Even as late as 50 years ago? If you mouthed off to someone or screwed them over in some way, they could break your nose with near-impunity, and odds were good that no jury would convict them for doing so - because quite frankly you 'had it coming'.

Today, things are a whole lot different.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Pentium100]

It could also be that the software uses always-online (or just online activation) DRM and the manufacturer took down the activation servers.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[grainofsand]

Not necessarily. There are often significant tax advantages to leasing.
 

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[demonlapin]

No, leasing a car every three years is more expensive than buying a car, maintaining it properly, driving it for ten years, and selling it. Over the first three years? It's usually a lot cheaper. And if you like having a car that's always in warranty - which is another way of saying "it's always someone else's problem" - it is not necessarily foolish to pay for that.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

And all of those are covered by laws and you have a chance to recover your money through the courts.

This one is not, though it should be.

It's like if you buy a power drill and then the seller comes, breaks off the reverse switch and tells you to pay him to put it back.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[freman]

If Sony can do it, why can't the little guy.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[geminidomino]

please provide an example of software that no longer works

Uh... the game from TFS?

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Scarletdown]

Actually I found it quite ironic that the ebook reader is called Kindle. What happens if you kindle a book?

Well... If you manage to get it up to a temperature of, measured in Farenheit, 451...

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[noh8rz2]

No, the TFS is a really bad example of a valid concern. The software / publisher in the TFS is just ripping people off. The argument in this thread over license vs. own is what happens after several years. Sosume said that most of his licensed software doesn't work anymore, which says that it stopped working over the passage of time. I'm asking for a frinstance.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Pentium100]

Well, Ubisoft's DRM comes to mind, but that is for games and the servers are still accessible.
However, it does not require a large leap of logic to say that most likely some industrial software is using that too (after all, when the author of a $10k video editing software asked how to protect it, one of the answers /. users gave was "use always-on DRM").
Also, it does not have to be always-on DRM. Even if the DRM requires online activation during install only, when the servers go down, so does your ability to reinstall the software. And a company may turn the activation servers for $version off when it releases a new version.

On the other hand, making software explode - now that would be interesting. The software would have to come with a USB bomb that you would have to plug into the computer, or that feature (blowing up) won't work.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[AuMatar]

Since the average lifetime of a car is far more than 3 years- yes, it's always foolish to pay for that. If you lease a car, you're a fucking moron.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Rich0]

Remember folks, Fair Use includes being able to make backups of software you buy. Exercise that right.

While fair use gives you the legal right to make backups, it does not give you the right to exercise that right. Hence, on any Android phone it is not possible to back up an application unless you've rooted the phone, or otherwise obtained direct access to its storage. The out-of-the-box android security model protects the directory containing the application files, and any file-browser app you install on the phone doesn't have access to it. Apps stored on the SD card are encrypted using a key that is, again, stored in a protected location.

Now, if you root the phone then you can do whatever you want with it, and that includes the legal right to make backups of apps.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[WhitetailKitten]

I believe you mean 662. Ray Bradbury didn't have the Internet; we do.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[theCoder]

Does that work in all cases? I recently attended a seminar where the speaker advocated making "hybrid" apps for mobile platforms. There are simple wrappers around a web view that downloads the necessary HTML, JS, etc files when it's first launched, and can update automatically. I pointed out that this seems like a huge security issue for users, since the developer could go rogue and change the various files to do something nasty. The speaker didn't really have an answer.

Your backup solution sounds interesting, but even if it restored the cached old version of the HTML, etc files, there's the possibility that they would still get the new versions the next time you run the app. I suppose you could block the app's network access, but that might not always be feasible (the app might need network access to do its job).

I don't have a solution. This is a systemic problem with web apps. But on the phone, these hybrid apps have more access than normal browser based apps. So something to think about.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[noh8rz2]

well, I was hoping for a specific example of abandoned DRM. you did not provide one. Thinking a little broadly, I came up with one. Remember LucasArts X-Wing? best game ever. at launch you had to type in a code from a random page of the manual, to prove that the software is yours. At one point I lost the manual, and was temporarily SOL. I asked for a new manual and they sent one to me. Crisis averted!

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[Surt]

I'm preaching violence as a pattern. I don't care enough about this issue in particular.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[sjames]

I certainly don't advise violence upon family, but what you call 'voting with your feet' is also known as tucking tail and slinking away. If you have been ripped off and have a chance, spit in the crooks face and tell him why.

Rip-off artists LOVE when you vote with your feet. It means they suffered no real consequence and the field is clear so they can see their next mark more clearly. Meanwhile, their continued existence slowly degrades life for everyone. They damage the bonds of trust that are so necessary to form a cohesive society. They make everyone start to look like a suspect. Each one adds his own drop of poison to the community well.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[sjames]

No. When you rent a nice car long term, they cannot swap it out with a Yugo while you sleep and keep charging you for the Ferrari.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[sjames]

Linux on a PS3. The software in TFA. Google is your friend.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[sjames]

It's more like learned helplessness. So many rip-off artists operate with impunity these days (including big name corporations) that people start to feel as if the hermit's cave is the only option to avoid them all. So they just give up and hope they use lube.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[jo_ham]

The other option is to voice your dissatisfaction to the developers by writing a review (but be polite and descriptive, unlike 90% of the written reviews that are either wildly unhelpful, ignorant ranting or just nonsense).

This happened to me with the Flixter app, which was excellent for showing me nearby cinemas and what was showing etc. I used it all the time. Occasionally the trailers for listed films wouldn't show, but it wasn't a huge deal breaker.

Then I saw an update on the App Store and the sum total of the release notes were:

"Bug fixes"

so I installed it, thinking that perhaps it would fix the occasional trailer playing problem.

Instead, what I got was an app that now had an obnoxious full screen animated advert that appeared whenever I launched the app that could not be dismissed (you *had* to click on the product and give them a click-through if you wanted to get to the app). As a double whammy, the app took a long time to come up, leaving the app unresponsive while it did this. So, this functionality was added under the guise of "bug fixes". I wrote a review of the app immediately stating that it was fantastic, and did everything I needed, but that I would be uninstalling it now since I had been misled and had "updated" to a much inferior product, and that this was a shame. I then uninstalled and never used it again.

Just recently I saw a friend use the app on her phone and the obnoxious advert has gone, so I assume they listened to someone that they had crippled their app, or perhaps they realised they were making more money with the less intrusive ads, since so many people simply stopped using the version with the enforced click through. Either way, the app is much more usable now and I have reinstalled it.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[petermgreen]

It's not really limited to HTML/JS based apps, there are plenty of conventional apps that update themselves without asking for permission first.

Yes in some cases you can make and restore backups and find a way to block the app from autoupdating but if the app has an activiation system it may not be possible to activate your restored backup without updating first and/or the app may rely on network services that insist on an updated version.

Re:Beyond the DRM dilemma

[causality]

The simple solution is to not buy digital products from people you don't trust. Building a solid reputation does take time (and money) and is not so easily discarded. The problem is that people blindly spend a few bucks on companies with no reputation and then are shocked when those companies don't follow the highest standards of customer service.

This doesn't absolve those unethical companies of guilt, but it doesn't make me feel too sorry for those who choose not to patronize (reward) companies with good reputations. This is true in the digital world or the real world.

Finally, after reading the very last post in this thread, do I feel like someone understood what I was saying and wasn't trying to twist it around into a "but somehow this is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" kind of hollow rationalization.

Thank you for taking the time to post.

that's the magic of auto updates

[alen]

come to the cloud, updates are free, automatic and easy

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[sqlrob]

You mean like that update to the NYT in the cloud...

Or the Gannett one. Yup, free all right.

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[GaratNW]

This is purely developer/publisher fault. Perhaps Apple and Google should put more in place to prevent this sort of thing, but the correct, and customer friendly route, to changing something like this, create a new version. Now you have Touch Racing Nitro, and Touch Racing Nitro+. Already bought the first? Awesome. Enjoy and have fun. It's no longer available for sale, but if you bought it, its yours. Play TRN+ for free, and here's all these IAP things, such as paying to remove advertising. If those various pay things are important to you, you have them, if not, you can keep playing for free. This keeps their early supporters happy, with the version they bought, and provides them a better revenue generating version for fans, new and old, that they can probably even afford to update and add new content to. This was just crappy behavior, or poor planning, on the part of TRN team.

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[masternerdguy]

This is the government's fault for not making this behavior a felony.

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[gstoddart]

This is the government's fault for not making this behavior a felony.

But ... but ... without corporate profit seeking, the Earth would stop spinning and the universe would collapse.

We need for this to be legal, it drives the entire economy. /sarcasm

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[ZombieBraintrust]

The goverment doesn't need to make new laws everytime a new product comes along. This is already a crime. The users just need to find a prosecurter who will prosecute it. (No sure if the word felony applies. This is a Swedish company.)

Re:that's the magic of auto updates

[gorzek]

Everything that goes wrong is either the fault of the government doing too much, or not enough--or even both. Count on it!

Well...

[MightyMartian]

I guess there might be a case for misrepresentation, though I'll wager the licensing agreement allows the company to do whatever they like.

The real solution here is, of course, not to pay these guys. Don't play their stupid game. If their stunt loses them customers, they're not likely to try it again.

Re:Well...

[Kenja]

But what does that have to do with digital distribution? If the same thing happened with a game you installed from a DVD and then applied a patch for, what's the difference?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can reinstall from the DVD.

Re:Well...

[Deathmoo]

Just so. Shady business practises are not limited to software vendors alone, although it seems to me like fraud and shabby business practises are EXPLODING on this front. Don't buy their shit. Ever. That's the only thing they will understand. Unfortunately, they probably already made some cash off of it, and now can turn around and build another, to repeat the process over again on unsuspecting consumers. Hopefully this kind of thing can be nipped by the Marketplace administrators, there does need to be some standards there about treating your customers so poorly (or plain stealing from them).

Re:Well...

[PIBM]

I don't understand how they've been able to pull something like this. On a free game on iOS we added some stuff which required us to block some content of one of the levels for old ipods, as they didn't had the required power to play it. We were denied the update as apple said that nothing could be taken away from the users in an update (!), and we had to build 2 different code path & levels so that both could exists together. In a free game... I would expect them to prevent such a thing even more on a paid game!

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is I still have the version from the DVD. I can uninstall the patched version then install the version from the DVD and get my expected functionality back. The same cannot be done with an online version; the version available is outside of my control.

Re:Well...

[residieu]

You could uninstall the game and install it again without the patch to get back what you paid for. You can't do the same with this game, because only the latest version is available.

Re:Well...

[nevermore94]

I did not read if this was an Android or iOS game, but on Android you can make simple backups of any installed app/game with free apps such as AppMonster and then reinstall those backups should anything like this ever happen. This does not even require "rooting" or "jailbreaking". If you do choose to root your Android phone, then you can do even better complete app and data backups with Titanium Backup.

Re:Well...

[Deathmoo]

Yes, your right, they already paid for it. Their money is gone. I don't think I'm missing the point. The $7 is apparently wasted. Sue them I guess would be another option. Good luck getting your $7 back then. The only real option from this point forward would be spreading the word, and as a poster above mentioned, this is really hard to do in the Marketplace. Poor rating being the only realistic thing to do. Bitch to Google? I bet they care.

Re:Well...

[sribe]

I guess there might be a case for misrepresentation, though I'll wager the licensing agreement allows the company to do whatever they like.

Any such agreement would be ruled unconscionable and unenforceable. Sounds like users really should sue these turds out of business. Except of course that it's not worth anyone's time to do so. But at the very least, recent purchasers should be initiating chargebacks on their credit cards.

Re:Well...

[purplie]

Nonsense. If their stunt loses them 99% of customers and let's them rip off 1% in a big way, then yes, they'll try it again.

Re:Well...

[KDR_11k]

Apple seems to be really random about testing submissions, on one hand you get rejected for superficial crap, on the other they allow that infamous "Pokemon Yellow" thing to go up, a "game" that consists of a title screen and just crashes if you do anything. It's sold for money and obviously infringing upon a well known set of copyrights and trademarks. That's so stupid they should be sued for letting it on the store.

Re:Well...

[Culture20]

I don't understand how they've been able to pull something like this. On a free game on iOS we added some stuff which required us to block some content of one of the levels for old ipods, as they didn't had the required power to play it. We were denied the update as apple said that nothing could be taken away from the users in an update (!)

Simple: You announced it truthfully. These guys were sneaky and the lazy/overworked Appstore Door Troll just read the description and gave them a gold star.

Re:Well...

[sjames]

Not all terms are enforceable. A reasonable court would throw such terms out of the agreement.

sony all over again..

[SuperDre]

yeah, I know, I'm stupid for bringing this up, but it's exactly what Sony did with OtherOS, you paid for certain functionalities but the seller changes it's mind and screws you over..

What the developer did in this case seems illegal to me from a consumerlaw standpoint.. But these things are stuff why I rather just have the old physical discs/carts..

Re:sony all over again..

[poena.dare]

On December 8, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the last remaining count of the class action lawsuit, stating: "As a legal matter, [..] plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable." He then removed massive amounts of wax from his ears after the trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS

Once again, I am in the wrong damn business.

Re:sony all over again..

[sribe]

On December 8, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the last remaining count of the class action lawsuit...

That update was optional, and I believe Sony disclosed the removal of OtherOS functionality beforehand. While I think the judge got wrong anyway, it was not nearly as abusive as this...

Re:sony all over again..

[jimicus]

On December 8, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the last remaining count of the class action lawsuit, stating: "As a legal matter, [..] plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable." He then removed massive amounts of wax from his ears after the trial.

IIRC, it's not as simple as it sounds. AIUI you can't just go to court and tell the judge "Organisation X did something and I'm not happy!" - you have to explicitly say why you think it's illegal. The judge isn't supposed to figure out for himself why something may or may not be legal, simply which argument is the most persuasive.

Yet this is precisely what happened in the Sony case.

Re:sony all over again..

[westlake]

On December 8, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the last remaining count of the class action lawsuit, stating: "As a legal matter, [..] plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."

Digging a little deeper:

Seeborg found the plaintiffs could not prove that they had a right to expect the OS feature beyond Sony's warranty period or continued access to the Playstation Network.

Sony Tosses PlayStation 3 Upgrade Claims Aside

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Judge Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable."

The problem is that the plaintiffs could not prove that they were entitled to an ongoing relationship with Sony after the date of purchase, and they had the option of turning down the update and continuing their use of their Linux installations. "As a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Judge dismisses "Other OS" class-action suit against Sony

The choice may have been a difficult one for those who valued both the Other OS feature and access to the PSN, but it was still a choice.

[For] Sony's conduct to have been in any manner wrongful, it is not enough for plaintiffs to show that they have a right to expect continued availability of the Other OS feature beyond the warranty period, but also a right to continued access to the PSN. Nothing in plaintiffs' factual allegations or their arguments is sufficient to support a conclusion that Sony has any obligation to maintain the PSN in operation indefinitely.

In short, even assuming it would be wrongful under one or more of plaintiffs' legal theories for Sony unilaterally to disable the Other OS feature after expiration of the warranty period but during the reasonably expected lifetime of machines that were otherwise still working properly, the facts show that Sony did not do so, except with the consent of owners who exercised an affirmative choice to install Firmware Update 3.21. For some, that choice may not have been made without regret, but absent some legal entitlement to continued access to the PSN, it was still a choice.

IN RE SONY PS3 OTHER OS LITIGATIONI [Full text]

Re:sony all over again..

[rohan972]

That update was optional, and I believe Sony disclosed the removal of OtherOS functionality beforehand.

An advertised feature was removed whether or not you installed the update.

Reminds me of an old scam

[ackthpt]

There was something on Slashdot a few years ago about people buying a service, then having to pay more to disable advertising.

I'd dump them without a second through. Cut your losses and move one.

I'd probably warn others as well as prospective future clients, by going to /. and other sites and writing about the craptivation of the game.

Re:Reminds me of an old scam

[Guppy06]

There was something on Slashdot a few years ago about people buying a service,

Cable/DSS television.

then having to pay more to disable advertising

Premium channels.

Re:Reminds me of an old scam

[TheRaven64]

The trick is to do it gradually. You don't make people pay to remove advertising immediately. You give them a useful product, then a bit later you introduce a small, easy to ignore, amount of advertising. Then you give them the option of paying to turn it off. It's easy to ignore, so most people won't bother. You also add some new (minor, easy-to-implement) features or, better yet, a security fix, at the same time, so people will want to get the update. Then you increase the number of ads. Now people are locked into your app or, at the very least, used to using it. Now they'll pay to remove the ads. Repeat and you've got a revenue stream.

This is a small variation of the business model of a lot of proprietary software where you pay for 'major updates' which include features like 'not crashing on launch when you run it on the new version of the OS' or 'not corrupting your documents'.

I've come across this behaviour so many times that I now have a standard reaction: find the open source program that's closest to the proprietary one and give them a donation equal to the cost of the upgrade. The problem is that other people are willing to continue to pay companies that have screwed them over in the past.

Re:Reminds me of an old scam

[CmdrPorno]

"There was something on Slashdot a few years ago about people buying a service, then having to pay more to disable advertising."

Kind of like the new Garmin GPS I got for Christmas with free lifetime maps and traffic. The free traffic service has ads that appear when you reach your destination. You can disable the traffic function and remove the ads, but is it only a matter of time until the free map updates include ads? This limitation was not well disclosed.

Users respond with poor ratings

[MetalliQaZ]

In response to the underhanded update, users take to the ratings system with a vengeance and downmod the developer into oblivion. Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[TheSpoom]

Poor ratings do not help those who have already paid for the shadily-updated app.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[ackthpt]

In response to the underhanded update, users take to the ratings system with a vengeance and downmod the developer into oblivion. Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.

And thus customers become wiser. Slightly poorer, by five quid, but wiser.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor ratings do not help those who have already paid for the shadily-updated app.

Sure they do. The show other app developers what happens when you cheat your customers and helps prevent this from happening to any of your other apps or future apps you buy. There is also the very slim chance that after seeing sales dry up from this shady update the dev decides to try and save his app by releasing an update that fix's things.

And your comment is also kind of selfish, letting others know the developer is a cheat is a good thing even if it doesn't have some immediate personal payoff it certainly helps others avoid getting cheated. But oh well eff them.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[izomiac]

On the Android market, a terrible update (i.e. the last twenty consecutive reviews are one star) may cause the app's rating to drop half a star over a few days. For historically good apps, the developers can get away with quite a bit of user abuse before their ratings suffer noticeably.

IMHO, Google should integrate the change log and post-update reviews into the install screen for any update. Also, ratings of the most recent version of the app should have far more weight (obviously factoring in people that hate change, developers that may release rapid updates to game the system, and developers that abandon their app so it no longer functions).

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[GameboyRMH]

Ah I see it is possible if you catch it in time, and then just never update the app again:

http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-hacking/60623-cydia-fix-reinstall-older-version-app.html
http://ismashphone.com/2011/01/how-to-revert-to-old-app-versions.html

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[TheSpoom]

And your comment is also kind of selfish, letting others know the developer is a cheat is a good thing even if it doesn't have some immediate personal payoff it certainly helps others avoid getting cheated. But oh well eff them.

You're attributing to me words I never typed. Did I say they shouldn't give the app a bad review? No, I simply said that it doesn't solve the unfortunate user's main problem (the irreversible reduction in value of the app for which they paid), as the GP seemed to be attempting to say it did.

Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.

Not really. It only prevents new people from downloading that app (or at best, that developer's apps). They or another developer could absolutely repeat the whole scenario with a new app, make a buttload more money, and rinse and repeat. This is not "routing around" the problem as one would say the internet "routes around" censorship; the problem is not abated by bad reviews.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[forkfail]

And then the company rebrands, rinses and repeats with the next app.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[idontgno]

Actually, calling out the miscreants doesn't necessarily help future potential customers at all. An Android dev account is $25 bucks. For $25 bucks, I can publish a passingly interesting app or two, crank down the screws when the suckers are caught up by their short-n-curlies, and then walk away from that particular identity... and register a new one for another $25. Now I'm fresh and my reputation is righteous, and the suckas are just lined up waiting to be fleeced by the new me. Meanwhile the former suckas are impotently fuming and raging at the old abandoned me like a dog snapping at a discarded gecko tail.

It's a great business model for the douchebag set, and terrific lulz too.

Your suggestion is a really nice idea, but Google isn't running a bunco squad looking for fast-moving fraudsters, so I don't see it helping any.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[dissy]

Once again the pirates are not bothered by this one bit.

Checking the standard iOS warez site, I can download versions 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. All kracked and fully unlocked.
v1.5 is the current broken one, which ironically I see an entry for and the comment "You don't want this version, use 1.4 instead"

And people wonder why I always try the pirated version first, and only purchase after!
I can honestly say not a single app on any of my devices is pirated. However I can guarantee that nearly all of them were pirated for at most 30 minutes.
Plenty of time to know if I want to just delete it and move on, or go buy it.

Of course I'm not exactly their target market, as the few games I do have I already knew about before seeing them available on iOS. Either ports of PC games, clones of PC games, or a buddy had it and let me try it.
But I'm weird like that.

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[Vintermann]

Well then, I'd like to call in a mob on Booyah games' "Early Bird" for Android. It hasn't happened so far, it ought to.

They had a paid version, then they made it free - and added advertising. I wouldn't mind if they made a free version with ads (or even a free version without ads), but they effectively force-downgraded the version I paid for.

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.booyah.birds

Re:Users respond with poor ratings

[stephanruby]

It's also useful to have a rooted phone so you can take proper backups of your apps.

iOS store price points were too low

[alen]

i noticed it a while ago that the price points were way to low to be sustainable. Not only were they low, but users expected unlimited updates for their $.99 game. and not just bug fixes, but new functionality. it worked for a while as the iOS installed base exploded but as growth slows down expect the return to version numbers.

it already started with "HD" versions of games and apps. separate iphone and ipad versions. sure you can run the iphone version on the ipad but it looks like crap.

next is the return to version numbers

cool racing game
next year is version 2 with new features and new IAP
and a new version every year and dropping compatibility with new iOS versions after a year or so

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[rolfwind]

Versioning is oldschool back during the boxed days of software. The downside of such versioning is the buyer has to wonder if it's the "right time" to buy said software or if they should hold off, not unlike hardware itself.

Most software should just do away with that, and offer updates for a set period of time from purchase, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc. That eliminates best time to purchase, gives everyone the same fair deal, and provides the developer with steady income too.

If I were Apple, I would offer developers a subsciption functions, where they can offer software and updates for a specific time from purchase.

Don't get me wrong, versioning numbers can still be provided to tell users what new things the upgrades entail, but not as a fence that says "You don't get this because you bought a day too early. Nyah, nyah!"

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[Overzeetop]

HD was Steve Jobs fault. He was afraid that nobody would design an app for his 1024x768 screen when they had just redesigned the app for the iPhone's 960x640 screen. So what does he do? He locks out the 960x640 versions on the iPad, forcing a pixel doubled 480x320 screen even when the higher resolution version existed.

I wanted to throw a chair at him for that bit of assholishness.

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Users don't necessarily require new features or functionality, just that existing features and functionality not be removed.

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[Anonymous Coward]

i noticed it a while ago that the price points were way to low to be sustainable. Not only were they low, but users expected unlimited updates for their $.99 game. and not just bug fixes, but new functionality. it worked for a while as the iOS installed base exploded but as growth slows down expect the return to version numbers.

How do you conclude that price points were way to low? Is this based on something concrete, or simply an armchair opinion? Bear in mind that a game selling for 99c can make as much money as a $30 game - production costs and sales are kind of relevant here.

Who are these users expecting new functionality, and why is that important? Can't developers just get away with including bug fixes and minor tweaks? Seems that in-app purchases are there for the very purpose of adding new content to games. If developers want to keep adding new content then that's their call, and presumably they're not doing it because they think it's the nice thing to do. I would hope that businesses are only adding new content because they feel it'll benefit the bottom line. Personally I'm far more likely to consider software from developers who show an interest in maintaining their shit, and it's even better if they keep adding new stuff. It's one of the reasons I like Valve titles, such as L4D2.

The actions of Bravo, the developers of Touch Nitro Racing, are not a result of price points in general being too low. Instead we see two possibilities:

1) Bravo fucked up when they originally priced the software
2) Bravo is gouging to get as much money as they possibly can

Based on the email from Bravo, I'm leaving very strongly towards them being a bunch of shysters with an alarming sense of entitlement coupled with utter contempt for their paying customers. There really does need to be legal protection against such shitty practices, and EULAs must not allow companies to take away content without solid justification.

it already started with "HD" versions of games and apps. separate iphone and ipad versions. sure you can run the iphone version on the ipad but it looks like crap.

What started with HD versions of games? A moment ago you complained that users were expecting an eternity of free added functionality, which is not economical for developers, and now you're complaining about developers offering HD versions. Are you playing devil's advocate to your own argument, or are you seriously arguing for two seemingly mutually exclusive outcomes?

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[Have Blue]

That's not at all what happened. At the time the iPad was released, iPhone screens were all 480x320. The 960x640 phone came later (and, in the usual Apple fashion, not revealed to developers until that time).

Also, the store supports and encourages "universal" apps- a single purchase/single binary that works natively on both devices, and has done so since the iPad launched.

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[Anonymous Coward]

Why let facts get in the way of nerd rage?

Re:iOS store price points were too low

[Overzeetop]

Perhaps at release, but in just 3 months the iP4 came out, and yet the higher res was still blocked. It's still blocked today. Why?

If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Thanatopsis]

Oh yeah. Delete the app. If you don't like it post change, don't use it. I mean I think it's a foolish move but it's their game. You are just buying a license to it.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Thanatopsis]

The key difference is you don't own the house. You rent with a rental agreement that says the landlord can take the house away, change the locks at any time. Read the EULA some time.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Score Whore]

You're buying a license to a particular feature set and level of functionality. I have no doubt that the people who actually paid money have a legal case if the update took away substantial features and functionality.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[fran6gagne]

Yeah, great solution.

"Hey, I just got robbed!"

"So? Don't live in that house any more if you don't like people robbing it."

Since a license generally give you the right to use an application. A more appropriate analogy would be:

"Hey, I just got robbed!"

"So? Don't live in that apartment any more if you don't like people robbing it."

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Thanatopsis]

Nope. You really should spend some time reading EULAs you effectively sign away most of those rights.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yup. Sucks if you paid $5 for it, but better to cut your losses than to support a sleazy racket like this. Oh, and be sure to leave some informative comment on the game in the app store.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[TraumaFox]

Many countries have laws that supersede EULAs. Even in the US, there have been plenty of cases where EULAs have been judged invalid. Publishers aren't allowed to put whatever they want in a EULA; you could agree to a EULA that gives the publisher the right to assassinate you, but that still wouldn't be legal.

This particular case, and indeed the entire purpose of pointing out and writing articles about cases like these, is to draw attention to the need for protection against what many widely consider unfair business practice, especially in places where that protection is limited or absent.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[St.Creed]

It's not people, it's the landlord.

"Hey, I just got robbed"

"So? Don't live in that apartment any more if you don't like your landlord removing all your stuff, drinking your wine and emptying your wallet."

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[forkfail]

If you don't see the moral and ethical problem here, you are part of the increasing number of ethically stunted and morally retarded people with whom the rest of us have to share the world. Please don't hesitate to refrain from reproducing.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You're buying a license to a particular feature set and level of functionality. I have no doubt that the people who actually paid money have a legal case if the update took away substantial features and functionality.

Sony already won that in court when some people sued over the removal of the ability to boot linux.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[amoeba1911]

It's not the landlord, it's the people that work for the landlord (app developers)

"Hey, I just got robbed"

"So? Don't live in that apartment anymore if you don't like the plumber stealing your copper pipes for recycling money."

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Score Whore]

That's why I said "substantial features and functionality". The vast majority of what a PS3 is is not the Other OS feature. On the other hand if I buy a racing game and it has three tracks and they later remove two of those tracks they have removed 2/3rds of the product. Just like if I buy a word processor and after clicking on the EULA and it's "no particular fitness" clause it pops up a dialog that says "HA-HA Fooled You!" and the only button is labeled exit, I will certainly get my money back regardless of the disclaimers in the EULA.

Re:If only there was some way to avoid this!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's why I said "substantial features and functionality". The vast majority of what a PS3 is is not the Other OS feature.

Except to the people who actually used it, to them it was pretty freaking substantial. It is entirely plausible to expect that the users of that (and other removed features like SACD playback) purchased their PS3's precisely because of those features and that such features constituted a significant portion of their usage of their PS3's.

Similar things have happened before...

[Cinder6]

A couple years back (or maybe just a year), an "update" came out for WipEout HD on the PS3. The game cost $15 to buy, but the update added video advertisements to the loading screens of each race. Aside from being annoying, they drastically increased load times in order to force you to actually watch the ad. While not as bad as actually crippling the game as in this case, that event really soured me to the concept of digital distribution.

Really, the only company I trust with digital distribution these days is GOG, who don't use DRM in any of their games. Yeah, they pulled that weird "shutdown" stunt a while back, but to my mind it only proved their value--nobody was unable to play their games during the outage (except for those few people who hadn't gotten around to downloading them yet).

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[sqlrob]

Really, the only company I trust with digital distribution these days is GOG, who don't use DRM in any of their games

While looking at the details of some of the recent sales and additions, I found out that at least some of the games do

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[KiloByte]

But there is a digital distribution company that is trustworthy! Here; don't forget to donate for their noble work.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[sqlrob]

Servers for games that have direct connections between players?

How long have you been PC gaming?

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[Sez Zero]

I found out that at least some of the games do

This looks like a technical issue in how the game functions, not necessarily a DRM limitation.

It seems like a lot more work to rewrite a game-server protocol than to just hand out free keys to everyone and use the existing system. I guess that isn't the idea solution, but look how good the DVD DRM was after DeCSS came out. If we all have the keys, is it really that restrictive of a DRM system?

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[ConceptJunkie]

GOG.com provides such good value, I have even repurchased games from them that I already own, because I know they have been properly updated, configured or bundled with DOSBox so that they run on modern Windows versions (and often Linux too) with absolutely zero hassle.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[sqlrob]

It's still dependent on them.

The real fix, without rewriting the protocol, would be to bundle the keygen with the main download. No master ship for key requests.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[sqlrob]

I've done the same. Finding this (first in NWN in the sale, then the America Conquest release, I don't know where else) has destroyed some of my good will towards them.

I wish they either said no to the original publisher or bundled the keygen with the downloads.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[SuricouRaven]

I recall UT2K4 does the same, but authenticates serials by proxy: The clients send their (hashed) keys to the server, the server contacts Epic, checks the key-hash is valid, kicks if not. It is nice enough though that if it can't get a response (quite common at quick lan setups, there may be no internet connection) it'll just let the game continue. You can also quite easily disable it's ability to contact the auth server (It's an INI file edit), but this does also mean you can't advertise on the public metaserver.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[SuricouRaven]

It'd be almost a perfect consumer-friendly DRM scheme, affecting only pirates with no obnoxious lockout technologies or compatibility breaking and no manditory internet connection. It is, though, marred by a flaw: Valid CD keys became so sought-after that some actually wrote key-stealing trogens into fake patches or mods in order to steal and impersonate the keys of legitimate users. So... close, very close, but still evil if only for creating an unintended incentive for malware.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[brit74]

Piracy is the reason DRM exists. Next time I get burned by DRM, I'm coming to your house and punching you for not supporting the companies who are doing the work. And punching you a second time for suggesting that the pirate bay is part of the solution rather than part of the disease.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[idontgno]

If piracy did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

--Voltaire, if Voltaire had worked for the modern media mob

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[amoeba1911]

Sharing without the copyright holder's consent has existed and will exist regardless of DRM. Humans are social creatures, we like to share stuff. We've had 100 thousand years of sharing knowledge through spoken language and thousands of years of sharing knowledge through written language. Our impressive ability to share is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Sharing of knowledge and ideas is an indispensable component of the human success story. The whole idea of "must not share" goes against the very foundation of human nature and is an insult to the roots of our civilization.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[Shagg]

Piracy is the reason DRM exists.

You'd have to be pretty foolish to actually believe that. Piracy is the red herring that provides the excuse for them to force DRM on legitimate consumers, but preventing piracy is not what DRM exists for. It's not even very useful for preventing it.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[VGPowerlord]

I recall UT2K4 does the same, but authenticates serials by proxy: The clients send their (hashed) keys to the server, the server contacts Epic, checks the key-hash is valid, kicks if not. It is nice enough though that if it can't get a response (quite common at quick lan setups, there may be no internet connection) it'll just let the game continue. You can also quite easily disable it's ability to contact the auth server (It's an INI file edit), but this does also mean you can't advertise on the public metaserver.

Valve's servers do the same thing, but with Steam IDs instead of serial numbers.

Except that Valve's servers don't have the option to disable talking to the master server except via a pirated server.

Then you have games like Team Fortress 2, where you have multiple "master" servers in play... there's the one that authenticates players, the one that authenticates servers, and the one that talks to both clients and servers to control players inventories.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[nitehawk214]

It's still dependent on them.

The real fix, without rewriting the protocol, would be to bundle the keygen with the main download. No master ship for key requests.

Also their server based multiplayer games need to be compatible with the original versions using the original DRM system. They can make the single-player game fire up without any DRM, but when a (non-GOG version) server does a key auth, the GOG version of the game needs a key authenticate.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[Deathmoo]

A modern AAA Title? Like Battlefield, or Star Wars? Not like some POS 'droid game. (Not that they don't deserve to be paid for their work, just that I don't see how anything BUT those REAL AAA titles could be called that...)

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[trawg]

Rather than mod you down for disagreeing - why do you think DRM exists? You haven't really provided an alternative explanation.

I don't believe it exists specifically for the purpose of screwing legitimate customers by applying post-purchase crippling as in this case. DRM/copy protection has existed for as long as I can remember - I can still remember the copy protection schemes on our old Apple 2 games. And I remember how futile they were at stopping people from copying games.

I think this is almost just a case of Hanlon's razor. I really think they're generally just dumb. I've been to GDC several times now and have seen all the stands there from companies that are offering DRM/copy protection/security solutions. They have nice shiny booklets and whitepapers and deliver a great pitch, and I think they target the level of a business where people have no technical clue about how useless DRM is.

These people are interested in protecting their bottom line and fall for this spiel. I genuinely believe that is why big games companies like Sony, Ubisoft, etc are just so completely retarded - they rely on these DRM schemes to stop a few zero day thefts, the people who are making this decision being utterly oblivious as to the real cost - and the futility - of doing so.

I feel that is historically how things have all worked. DRM in the cloud/Internet age has opened up new avenues to exploit customers, but I think they are the exception rather than the norm.

Well, maybe it's just that I'd /like/ to think that because I'd almost rather people be stupid than evil - stupid will hopefully get wiped out through evolution, but evil can keep finding a way to force its way in.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[tnk1]

Okay, that I don't buy. You're asserting that their eagerness to use DRM is because they like DRM. DRM is overhead. If there was no piracy, they wouldn't need DRM at all. Online cash-cow models would still work without DRM features as someone still has to pay to access your servers, but that's not actually DRM, per se.

This is entirely aside from the argument whether piracy would otherwise put publishers/developers out of business. I don't think it would, but you can't argue that it's strange to believe that if someone is freely copying the bits you are trying to sell for 20 bucks, that you might at least lose some sales. That is why they consider piracy a threat, but to argue that it is a goal for them to want to put DRM on us for the sake of DRM? I don't see that.

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[hanako]

There are quite a lot of software developers/distributors for whom piracy IS the reason that DRM exists. There are others for whom it definitely isn't. There are many many more that neither you nor I is in a position to say for sure. You have no call to assume bad faith in a blanket statement. Hanlon's razor?

Re:Similar things have happened before...

[hanako]

There are many software sellers that don't use DRM. Wouldn't it be nice if customers actually did their homework and supported them?

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[Kenja]

Explain how you not agreeing to the terms of use for a service disables said service is evil. If you dont plan on using the features of the marketplace, why do you care if its disabled? What exactly is it stopping you from doing? Your phones OS updates dont come from there, only apps and add updates. And since its Android, you can just install apps from the APK files and totally ignore the app store.

So how is it that your "paid-for phone is now becoming less and less useful"?

No Refund Terms of Sale

[dietdew7]

It's in the terms of sale from the article that Itunes has a no refund policy. It's also true for Barnes and Noble. I've been reluctant to purchase any apps and now that seems wise whereas before I was just being cheap.

Re:No Refund Terms of Sale

[FictionPimp]

When apple removed the google voice apps from itunes I was able to get full refunds for those apps. So they will do refunds.

When they do a refund, they also screw the developer. The developer eats the full cost of the refund and apple keeps the money they made.

Re:No Refund Terms of Sale

[SuricouRaven]

Is it even a sale, though? I imagine that for legal purposes it'd be considered a licence.

Re:No Refund Terms of Sale

[nosferatu1001]

Doesnt matter -in the UK you *cannot* have a blanket "no refunds" statement

You can have "no refunds, except those required under XYZ", but in B2C you always have some right of refund in the UK, and attempting to pretend that you do not is illegal

DVDs have always been doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just games. When I purchase a DVD for home use, it comes with advertising that I can't skip. Why is that? I already paid for the movie, I shouldn't have to pay again by being forced to watch ads.

Why update?

[jimmyswimmy]

This is one reason why I rarely update anything on my Android tablet. I have a number of kids' games on there which never had many privileges when I installed them, so there's little security worry (plus it's only connected to my WLAN). What could "Draw by Numbers" possibly need to update to work better? The only "upgrade" I expect is them to remove pictures. My 3 year old is thrilled with the 10 or 20 different things she can draw on there, and that probably is limiting sales.

I only upgrade OS items now and disable the automatic upgrade checking for everything else. I'm sure I'll hear about why that's bad here. I think years of free and truly beneficial MS updates have confused a lot of us into thinking that an upgrade actually means what the word is defined to mean. Much like "gender" replaced "sex" I think the true meaning of the word "upgrade" is being replaced by something. Something not good.

Re:Why update?

[bdh]

For things like my PC operating system, I do updates, for security reasons. But I also have an image backup of my C: drive, so if the update bricks my systems, I can unbrick it.

Other devices, such as my WDTV, O!Play, or Asus Transformer, I do not, unless (a) the update has someone thing I really, really want/need, and (b) the update is at least a month old, and I've seen positive feedback. Both Asus and WD have had firmware updates that bricked units, and the solution was to get an RMA number and send the unit back to the factory. And what benefit would this firmware update have provided, anyway? In one case, I believe it was Hebrew subtitle support; in another, support for some hard drive model I don't own. So a simple risk analysis shows that to get features I wouldn't (or can't) even use, I have the potential of breaking the existing system.

A pet peeve I have is my Asus Transformer occasionally will blithely announce that it's going to do a firmware update, and I can delay it up to three days. Then I read on forums where X% of users have bricked their units by the update. Nice, really nice. Especially when you read nonsense like "we've improved the update process, so now we actually check the MD5 of the downloaded file before reflashing the OS". You mean you didn't before?

Where's the Update : Never setting?

[RealGene]

From the latest version of PocketCloud Remote Free (RDP/VNC client for iPxxx):

What's New in Version 2.2.134

We noticed we had mistakenly enabled multiple computer support on a previous release.
This free version of PocketCloud has always been limited to 1 computer as documented on the app description.
We apologize for the inconvenience and ask for your understanding.
We are discounting PocketCloud Pro 40% to ease the migration for our power users who need to access multiple computers.

Re:Where's the Update : Never setting?

[AbRASiON]

Mod this guy straight up - I also got stung on a similar issue on Android using "Remote RDP Lite" - about 10 months ago, I could have as many entries as I like, now I can have 1.

Since I continue to update the application, it's actually kept my configuration file from the old version and let me have all the entries but I can't create more. If I delete one to make another, I can't do that either.

Basically I want to now locate the config file and hand tune the thing myself. It's bullshit :/

Re:Where's the Update : Never setting?

[evilviper]

With android, it's easy to back-up your installed applications. And if you didn't, somebody else did, and ut it up on the web. You just need to search the web for the APK of the proper version of the app, and don't upgrade it again.

Really? Is this the worst that can happen?

[ColdSam]

This is not the sample case that proves the evils of digital distribution.

This is a minor inconvenience, at best. Since the app had been free for many months already, there were probably few of the original purchasers still playing the game. If they were, the vast majority had probably already received more than enough value from their dollar.

Claiming that those original purchasers have been screwed out of $150,000 is as absurd as saying that software companies lose full value for every game that is pirated.

Re:Really? Is this the worst that can happen?

[dietdew7]

I from a generation that has the mindset that if I pay for something it stays paid for.

Re:Really? Is this the worst that can happen?

[Qzukk]

the vast majority had probably already received more than enough value from their dollar.

At what point is it OK for me to steal your car since you already received more than enough value from your dollar?

Re:Really? Is this the worst that can happen?

[ColdSam]

I'd say at the point that it's sitting out in my backyard, I haven't used it in 4 months and it has zero resale value. That doesn't make it "OK", but it doesn't make it a big deal, either.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[fast turtle]

I've experienced problems with the auto-update of Google products in the past, which is the reason I refuse to even allow them onto my computer now.

Tinfoil Hat Time: The biggest issue I've had with Google's software is the privacy elements. It wasn't so bad to begin with but the last time I installed Picassa, it wanted to index my entire system and send all of that data to Google

That was pretty much the last straw. Why does an image viewer need access to any files other then /Users/UserName/MyPictures? It doesn't need to scan the entire system by default looking for pictures and it shouldn't but since it's almost impossible to get any kind of response from Google for Tech Support, I pulled all of their apps (Search/Picassa) and what not and prepped to Nuke it From Orbit and a clean install because Google's Updater wasn't removed along with all the scheduled task entries (It continued to update itself and transfer information to the mothership - malware/spyware behaviour) afterwards. Although I continue using Google for email, docs and such, I'm not sanquine about their efforts to profile/collect as much information about me as they are and I block Analytics along with some of their other efforts but haven't reached the point of giving up using things like Gmail, Docs and Calendar due to the usefulness.

Update? Downgrade!

[TraumaFox]

There are a number of clear solutions to this issue, they all just require better flexibility on Apple's part or new consumer protection laws (or better enforcement of existing ones). Cases like these involve carefully tiptoeing around the fine line between update and upgrade; you download an update, but instead receive a downgrade.

Re:Update? Downgrade!

[mfnickster]

Don't expect Apple to help the consumer on this issue. They practically started the practice.

I remember when Apple introduced QuickTime 3, which let you play back content for free but to edit audio and video you had to pay for the "Pro" version.

The editing features had previously been distributed for free with MoviePlayer 2.5, which still worked with QT3, so a lot of us users kept the old MoviePlayer to avoid having functionality taken away from us. Eventually it stopped working with QT after a few more "upgrades."

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[EdZ]

Therefore, I can't use Marketplace again to update my phone.

Then don't use marketplace to update your phone. Download the update elsewhere (i.e. manufacturer's website) and install it that way. Easy.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[spire3661]

Unfortunately, Google is using Android as a club, instead of a carrot. Open Source my ass.

Re:Caveat emptor

[Rastl]

It's not an industry problem that jacka** sellers and buyers exist. Magazines may change format/content after you subscribe, a book or movie you buy may suck. Just because you don't get what you expected doesn't mean the distribution method is to blame. It means you picked a bad seller! Beware who you do business with!

The flaw in this logic is that if I buy a physical product I get to keep exactly what I bought. With digital distribution the product itself is changed in ways I may not want. Remember Amazon pulling books that people had purchased? They couldn't do that to a physical book in my home. At least not nearly as easily.

I believe the flow of the article is more about how easy it is to make changes to digital products. That doesn't mean the game didn't suck at purchase - it easily could have and then you bought a product you didn't like. No different from a bad movie or book in physical form. Something that was free or fully functional at purchase and then crippled in an update is a different situation.

Caveat Emptor

[argStyopa]

A purchase is an investment in the credibility of the seller.

There are so many ways a seller can screw over a purchaser, that's why letters of credit were invented.

If you're purchasing something (effectively) that you have no idea how it works, from someone you don't know, and you give them (by update) the authority to make changes at will...well, to suggest that you are trusting is an understatement.

We've become so habituated to this model, we've forgotten that in the same way that Darwinism works by death, capitalism works by failure. For people to realize a seller can be identified as unscrupulous, a number of people have to get screwed.

What the market will bull

[sixtyeight]

Customers dumping products and companies that do things like this is what traditionally kept them in check. The underlying problem seems to be not that merchants have started using these underhanded tactics - that's been something merchants have always tried for centuries - but rather that the customer base accepts it. Gripes perhaps, but predominantly accepts it.

When is the last time you heard the word "boycott"? Particularly when it comes to digital media, consumption has become so convenient that large swaths of the customer base will put up with it. And thus it continues. Peoples' standards are more lax today than they used to be, and the standards of customers overall have the moral uprightness of a bowl of yogurt. Remember when stores used to thank you for your patronage, rather than just your business? That was in the fifties. They would be glad you stopped by and considered making a purchase, and were eager to build a relationship with their potential customers. Nowadays, it's 30-minute seating limits and Restrooms For Customers Only. How nice.

With the internet facilitating so much free communication (well, for the moment at least) and social co-ordination, there's even less of an excuse for people to be accepting this kind of treatment. Boycotts are even easier to organize than they were in the Seventies, and when people still don't manage it you really have to wonder about the acceptance level of the People. It seems they'll take quite a bit. That also accounts for much of our political situation in the U.S., by the way. If people wouldn't tolerate it, let alone enable it, it couldn't perpetuate.

It's less a matter of, "Et tu, Brute?" and more one of the People collectively forgetting their life skills. And getting consistently shorn for it.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[Night64]

And if your employer had provided you with an Iphone? It would be any different? You can't side load apps in IOS, can you? I mean, without jailbreaking the phone.

This isn't a technical issue

[davidwr]

This is not a technical issue. This is an issue of unfair trade practices.

Re:This isn't a technical issue

[donscarletti]

Internal ballistics is a technical issue, gun violence is a social issue. Guns are not intrinsically tools of evil, they're good for hunting and pest control too, but I can't help but think that there would be less killing and genocide in this world if guns weren't so damn effective at what they do. Digital distribution is the same, not nasty in of itself, but facilitates nastiness if misused, and it seems that it can be misused quite effectively.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[jimshatt]

The evil thing here is, of course, that whilst you not agree to the new terms, the app (or whatever) is still updated and then disabled rather than not updated at all. Because the update is forced the new EULA is forced as well. Furthermore OP clearly states he intends to use Marketplace to update his phone, which he now cannot do anymore.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[webheaded]

Because he's a troll.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[St.Creed]

Open Source my ass.

You sure about that? :)

Always wait to upgrade

[XxtraLarGe]

Before updating any program, always check the release notes, and make sure to see others feedback. I bought a game called "Catan" for my iPod Touch that they did something similar to what the app in the article did, except instead of making it free, the update removed the scenario it came with, and made it paid DLC instead. Additionally, they changed the orientation of the game from portrait to landscape, so you have to use both hands to play. I always check to see what has changed before I download any updates, and this is one that I'm not updating. Thankfully Apple doesn't auto-update apps.

Re:Always wait to upgrade

[RoverDaddy]

One frustration of mine, related to this, is lack of release notes. On my Kindle Fire, updates from the Amazon App store don't provide any explanation of the update at all. Your strategy is a good one, but in my case it will only work if other people have reported problems with the update AND I can find those reviews in the whole review history (reviews seem to be presented in an arbitrary order).

Report to google

[atari2600a]

If enough people complain, I'm Google'll fine SOME reason the game broke the EULA, pull the app & refund the customers.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[amoeba1911]

What he does with his ass is his own business.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[T-Bone-T]

Why does an image viewer need access to any files other then /Users/UserName/MyPictures? It doesn't need to scan the entire system by default looking for pictures

It does if you keep pictures everywhere but /Users/UserName/MyPictures, like on another drive.

And whats the moral?

[pinkeen]

And whats the moral?

There will be always someone trying to screw you no matter what distribution or business model. Well, nothing new here.

PS This case is interesting in itself but I don't buy the hype, too much generalization.

no

[alienzed]

The dark side of Touch Racing Nitro. This is the second article on slashdot in two days with a greatly overgeneralized title. Just because one developer is an a$$hole, doesn't mean the whole industry has this evil dark side we need to fear.

Digital distribution does /not/ suck.

[bmo]

As a Linux user and abuser for the last 14 years (regularly... irregularly before that), digital distribution has been very good to me.

Bait and switch is not a new concept. It's a long-time, er, tradition in retail and other businesses. Bait and switch schemes are fraud and should be treated as such, and such publishers should be shunned by the community at large if not prosecuted.

--
BMO

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[SengirV]

I"m not the OP in this situation, but this is how I read it as well. In the digital age, things do not remain static. You lose functionality over time, so this is the exact definition of "paid-for phone is now becoming less and less useful". Yet, even that commenter gets a nod from another by calling the OP a troll. Since like the art of debate is dead.

Re:Citation?

[dissy]

In response to the underhanded update, users take to the ratings system with a vengeance and downmod the developer into oblivion. Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.

Citation please?

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/touch-racing/id363548886?mt=8
Ratings on left side, comments are at the bottom.

Here are the last two comments:

Paid money and now have to spend more:(
by Bob1274

Was on offroad tournament for free with no adds and could get supertrax for free. Now I have to pay more money
===
You call this update??
by menRfromMars

Seriously very disappointing after this update... Ads and have to pay for what was free in first edition.....Sadly saying goodbye!!!!

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[Farmer Tim]

Then it should give you the option of specifying directories, not take the liberty of indexing everything.

No! My data! Bad Google! [hits Larry Page on nose with rolled up newspaper]

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[Endo13]

No, it doesn't. You seem to have skipped over the "by default" specification. By default, it should only look in the default directory for images. If you store your images elsewhere you should have the option to instruct it to look in those other places specifically.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[bmc13]

it should only look in other directories if i explicitly tell it about them. and hell, i think it should ask me first before even scanning the default directory. i opened picasa the other day after one of its updates and it had convienently forgotten my "do not scan" orders and began scanning the entire hard drive again, adding a bunch of random images into my photo library. pissed me off. and it was entirely too hard to tell it to stop scanning as well.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[nitehawk214]

What he does with his ass is his own business.

It sounds like he is trying to make it many others' business.

why small fish?

[vmerc]

Let's talk about SOE (Sony) who did almost this exact thing with one of their major releases.

What does this have to do with dig. distribution?

[Qbertino]

What does this have to do with digital distribution?

The description sounds either like a classic case of fraud or abysmal business pratices.
Ergo: Sue the vendor into next wednesday or mod them into next wednesday, spread the word and never buy a product from them again.

Stuff like this has happened way before digital distribution - although I have to admit, the naughtyness in this one does have exceptional qualities.

Bullcrap: This isn't different for TVs, etc.

[tlambert]

Here is how it is different.

I sell you a book, car, TV, shirt, power drill. You pay a fair price for it.

Then with an update, I remove your book from your reader, limit your car to driving 30mph, your TV to only working with bluray content so you can't use your DVD's any more, remove the pocket from your shirt, and limit your power drill to using phillips head bits so you have to buy a nother drill for star, hex, and flat head bits.

You can't do those things. But with digitial updates, not only can you do it, it is happening already.

Sure you can, at least with TVs. Remember the Broadcast Flag? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag -- It's already been used to remove value from devices purchased like that, by NBC on 18 May 2008.

Similarly, HDCP, which is pretty much in all new televisions, DVD players, BLU-Ray players and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection -- has a revocation feature which would permit rendering those devices useless as well.

Game systems with modchips and pay-per-view systems with programmable paycards have similarly been remotely disabled. While technically more grey-market, if you consider third party content not being permitted onto a physical device, which is perfectly legal, denying network access to these devices when they are not being used for circumvention purposes definitely also falls under making the hardware less useful after I've already purchased it.

Similarly, Amazon has already revoked ownership of books -- ironically, George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" -- from on the Kindle; there's no reason to believe they couldn't revoke anything, including the books which persuaded you to buy the Kindle in the first place (if they weren't the Orwell books already revoked).

I'll stop after this last example, but there are many others...

iPhone carrier locking. U.S. Law requires that a carrier unlock a cell phone from the original carrier in the event of contract buy-out, or normal time-based termination, at the request of the customer who wants the device unlocked. Yet you can not get the iPhone unlocked by requesting an unlock code. The reason? The code for the unlock is not known to the carrier, nor is it even known, or recratable, by Apple; it lives only on a secure server in the factory in China, and not all of them have been stored. Why? The code is a combination of the IMEI of the device, and the flash chip serial number for the baseband flash, and a secret key known only to that server, and that information is not exposed in such a way that it's even physically possible for someone to give you an unlock code.

Like the HDCP key revocation, Amazon key revocation, or the broadcast bit, it's a submarine attack on a device which you purchased in good faith.

So basically, your argument that physical artifacts don't suffer from this problem is BS.

-- Terry

Re:Bullcrap: This isn't different for TVs, etc.

[Maxo-Texas]

I think you need to think through your counter example a bit.

iphone, kindle, blu ray are all DRM

You knew the broadcast flag was in your TV when you bought it.

Amazon did not "revoked ownership of books". If Amazon sells an actual copy of the book "1984," there is jack squat they can do to change or get it back from you. They used DRM to revoke your electronic file.

Since you point it out, yea, it's theoretically possible for your blue ray players to patch so you can't use them on sundays, or not play dvd's.

Re:Bullcrap: This isn't different for TVs, etc.

[speculatrix]

we will soon have secure boot on PCs which will ensure they can only ever boot windows.

Re:Bullcrap: This isn't different for TVs, etc.

[virg_mattes]

Similarly, Amazon has already revoked ownership of books -- ironically, George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" -- from on the Kindle; there's no reason to believe they couldn't revoke anything, including the books which persuaded you to buy the Kindle in the first place (if they weren't the Orwell books already revoked).

The difference in this particular example is that Amazon refunded the money charged when they revoked access to the titles. That's not the same as the game in TFA because he didn't give buyers their money back.

Virg

just describes of any of the mobile markets

[crutchy]

Android Market, iTunes, Microsoft Market (if/when it ever happens) all suffer from risky updates. that's why I don't put many apps on my phone.

most of them are pretty shit anyway. at the end of the day, as with anything marketed by profiteering companies and individuals, you get what you pay for. period.

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[tylernt]

since its Android, you can just install apps from the APK files and totally ignore the app store.

And how, pray tell, do I get the APKs? 99.9% of apps are only available in Market, and I see no way to download the APK from Market -- just "Install".

Re:Or how about Android Marketplace?

[psiclops]

where do you get these apps from and how does iTunes know they are valid?

And it's nothing compared to Real VNC client IOs

[mad flyer]

Back in the 1.x version it was working marvel to directly connect to VMware virtual machines.

Then came some 2.0 update screwing up the only functionnality we were using.

No way to revert back...

GREAT...

Get a laywer

[Casandro]

Commercial licenses are typically far to complex to comprehend for the typical user. So either get a lawyer or accept to get screwed. If you don't like that, use free (as speech) software. Those typically have simpler licenses which are near impossible to break for the average user.

I paid for those atoms

[tlambert]

I knew that the iPhone, in order to be in compliant with federal law, had to give me an unlock code after the contract expired. I had a reasonable expectation that they would comply with this law, until the end of the second year after the first iPhones release, at which point it became obvious they had shot themselves in the foot.

I could either have no TV or one with the broadcast bit. I had a reasonable expectation that my television would not have the broadcast bit enabled at any point in the future due to their compliance with FCC rules in effect at the time of the purchase.

The DRM in these things are not the things themselves, they are incidental to them. Yes, this could be the basis of a class action lawsuit in these cases.

I paid for those atoms, they will damn well do what I tell them to.

-- Terry

Re:Sick of the whinning

[Golden_Rider]

So, the guy let you use his product for four months without charge.

How exactly is that screwing you over??

Thousands of customers BOUGHT the full, unrestricted, version of the app for $5, and now they would need to pay AGAIN to unlock the same app content which they already paid for (and were using), because the app automatically got "updated" into a "free, but pay to access all content" version.

Car analogy: you BUY a car (cash), and then one day the car manufacturer installs an "upgrade" which forces you to pay $1 each time you want to start your car's engine. According to you, that would be ok, since "they let you use the product for months without charge".

You Don't "Own" Software

[Greyfox]

Unless you wrote it yourself. And even then if it becomes popular there's some asshole with a patent on "buttons in a computer application" waiting to take it away from you.