It is the submitters responsibility to make sure they have the right to put the software they submit into the AppStore. Apple does not take any license agreement documents from you when you submit, they just warn you that you must be the owner of the stuff you put there. If licensing or copyright issues emerge, the app will be taken down and the publisher may suffer penalties.
If there is any issue with the license, the developers should had found them, not Apple.
As far as I understand, the only issue was one of redistribution, something that is a bit stupid when all you need to do to "redistribute" a free app is let any iOS owner know about it for them to download it.
I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.
All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.
This makes no sense... this "behavior" is exclusive to iOS app distribution. Why would anyone stop using Macs due to this? It's like me refusing to use Windows because the Zune sucks or refusing to use Gmail because of google refusing to do anything about the Android Fragmentation issues.
Any device can play any media it is programmed to. Apple is not against it playing back any form of media. There are other media players that can play multiple formats. I use ZumoCast, that is able to play back any video format I have tossed at it, but unfortunately it got bought out by Motorola (who removed it from the App store and is preparing to make it exclusive to it's own Android phones) and have also used Air Video. The later can stream any format via live conversion, but does not store them locally, it can play back over the internet, though, making me not even need to have anything in my device anyways (ZumoCast also allows this.)
This is not about Apple not wanting this, it is about a VLC contributor that happens to work at Nokia making a big licensing deal and forcing Apple to take the app down.
They guy who requested VLC be pulled works for Nokia. So you do the math as to why Apple was asked to remove an app Nokia had power over...
I don't know why this post got moded down. It is true it overshoot by stating "Nokia had power over" the application, but it is true the developer works for Nokia and it is very unlikely the guy can be considered the most objective of parties in this discussion.
Free software is compatible with the AppStore. Heck, the App Store is even compatible with Open Source. This is all just the result of one whiny developer that decided he hated iOS and decided to make it his personal project to toss a low punch at both, iOS owners and MobileVLC developers by arguing over terms of use.
Rémi Denis-Courmont says he has no sympathy for no one affected by this. But what can you expect from a Nokia software engineer. Objectivity is the last thing I would expect from someone in such a position. I would like to know what is the opinion of the rest of the VLC development team.
Next thing, they will collect our data and sell it, and they will also drive by our houses and take photos, videos, and even record wifi network data! We must stop Apple before they get that far!!!
To add (if this forum has an edit button I cant' find it) it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.
100% of the market has access to Androids, yet the iPhone has enough marketing power to be a challenge, and for a long time (and in many weeks/quarters) beat them.
This is like 4 guys bragging that they finally won a fight against one single guy, after they technically lost that same 4 to 1 fight 3 years in a row. How things will go in a 4 vs 2, I ponder?
I would like to see more significant numbers. How is the iPhone doing compared to other Android Phones within ATT? After all, no one goes out saying that Sprint HTC Android phones are loosing market because the combination of all other smart-phones across all carriers is greater.
Things will get much more interesting once iPhones become available outside of ATT.
I am crazy and all that, but I actually enjoy ads in magazines. I mean, as long as they don't enforce any timer that locks me in the ad, I actually enjoy catching up with new products through nice looking full page advertisement in magazines. They tend to gravitate in topic of the magazine in question, anyways, and chances are I may be interested in whatever they are selling.
What I oppose is the high price many digital magazines have picked. Printed magazines must cover paper and ink costs, and the ads help cover those. Digital distribution barely cost them anything (it is not free either, though) and pricing should reflect this.
The fact that I cant keep a magazine around as a collector's item, nor can I just give it away to a friend, are things that take a bit of value away from the product, too, and these factors make it harder for me to spend the same amount for a purely digital product (magazine/game/whatever) than for a physical one.
Although not magazines, I bought some digital comics on my iPad, mostly to test the waters. Although I enjoyed them, I disliked the high price for extremely old back-issues, in many cases higher than original cover price! And ironically, I missed ads. Today I still grab old comics and it feels like the best testimonial of it's age are the ads that serve to remind me that, yes, the frigging thing was bought when the NES was still popular.
When did indie games start dictating industry trends?
I didn't say they did. But are there any other PC games you can think of, whether major label or indie, supporting same-screen co-op on a home theater PC?
I fail to see the relevance to the topic in question. PC games have always been single-player centric, or lan/web-focused. That's nothing new.
The article in question is talking about the disappearance of the coop, and the wording seems to imply its exclusively talking about console and arcade gaming.
I can understand if you are making a side point, but not one that is directly related to the story.
If you see it that way, then they are split screen even in single player as they (Rock Band and GH) always split between the rolling collors view and the music band view. This band view, though, never gets split for multiplayer, instead tends to dinamically spotlight best or worst performers.
When did indie games start dictating industry trends?
Indie games strugle to go to market with a limited budget, its more than understandable if they are not designed to support such features, specially if they are PC ports.
This. Who needs split screen to play Rock Band with friends? How about New Super Mario Bros?
But some games, like Racing games and FPS, are really not viable without split screen, and I always hated that unavoidable fact.
That said, I got to poke holes into TFA. From TFA:
Games such as Donkey Kong Country, GoldenEye, Halo 1 and 2, Mario Kart, Twisted Metal 2 were the meat and potatoes of co-op games.
From the list they mentioned, the new Wii Goldeneye supports Split Screen.
Donkey Kong Returns also supports 2 player coop, no split screen required.
The latest halo game, Reach, also supports Split Screen.
Mario Kart supports Split Screen.
I have not seen a Twisted Metal game out in ages, and would love to see a new one, but last non-combat racer I played had at least 2 player split screen support.
In the end, the article does not even list games that he hates to be missing Co-Op, it does go on to claim Arcades seem to be lacking co-op, but the only point it ends up having is that Bet-Em-Ups (the games he list) seem to be nowhere to be seen in the arcade room. These days Arcades are dominated by fighters, racing games (that in the arcade room have ALWAYS delivered multiplayer via networking and multi-booth setups) and gun games that tend to always support two player modes.
I ponder if it was posted by a kid that was upset due to one specific shooter not supporting split screen, nothing new since I recal reviews of forgetable shooters in the PSX (that had me properly forget their names) complaining the lack of coop modes.
Maybe he is upset about the rising number of story-driven games that don't force a second player on screen. Its hard to tell because he didnt bother to make his point, TFA is reduced to a cenile old man whining about "The Good Old Days"
Firs off, Apple's multiple-touch patent is very specific to one implementation,
As for the other comments, I think the distinction of hardware and software is much more clear than you make it look. Compiled code? Software. Microchip? Hardware.
Sure, I can make software that technically gives the same results as some hardware, but results are not patentable.
Oh and "business practice" patents are ridiculously absurd, as are ridiculous "method off doing whatever" patents.
Patents should be restricted to physical inventions.
But that is the thing, it's not about "Porting to Android" anymore, it becomes about "Porting for Specific Device".
Carmack wrote Rage not for the iOS, but specifically for the two GPUs the iOS currently runs on. He even made note that had he known more on the specs he may had just gone to support the latest one (shared by iPhone 3gs, 4, iPod 3rdGen, 4rthGen, iPad)
With Android, you have a huge array of specs, and measuring the CPU speed alone is not enough, you need more info on each unit and their GPU, so you end not porting to "Android", you port to specific hardware that happens to run Android (BTW is there any resource by Google on how many Android installs run what CPU/GPU? I know they have screen size and version distribution data but I have not seen anything on CPU/GPU.)
A standarized label of sort may help, but they may refuse to go that path as it may be a public acknowledgement of their current hardware fragmentation "issues", wich they claim do not exist.
Even in the old days of the feature phone world, we always had EA Mobile or JAMDAT to build the 300 or 400 SKUs that they had for all the worldwide feature phone splits that we had from our four base versions. And we may yet wind up partnering with somebody else to do that level of broad support, but that's a little less satisfying when we're doing something that's pushing the limit graphically, because you don't have a second-tier company port your stuff to other graphics architectures and expect it to remain cutting-edge.
He is talking there about having some one else deal with the "fragmentation" or "splits", but also mentions it is not really an option with such graphically intensive games.
What is it with these companies, that they cannot stand having to compete on equal terms?
But what are "equal terms"? We don't live in a communist nation (at least I don't) if I come up with an invention, and I actually go so far as manufacturing, it's not really fair that my competitors can just copy it and market it.
Apple (and any other corporation) either spent a lot of money in research and development to come up with technologies like Multi-Touch capacitive screens (one of the patents being disputed), or they had to pay a lot of money to buy out the companies that did (and trust me, these bought out companies where glad they got bought.) Why should I not protect my created or purchased invention?
Actually, "Equal terms" would mean that they, too, must go through the same process and create all new tech, not that they should just automatically be entitled to compete with my product by duplicating mine.
The original intent of patents was precisely to incentivize inventions in this way, justifying research and development investment with an exclusivity use window. I heavily disagree with software patents, as I (as a programmer) can't see software as inventions but instead as copyrightable content, however I agree with hardware patents as they sort of do their job more than they get in the way. Without patents you would have huge companies just sitting around, monitoring the moves of the small guys, letting the small guys waste their money in R&D and then just steal the ideas and squash the small guy in the market.
Until anyone wins, it has not been proven anyone can hold the entire industry under "patently absurd ransoms".
Also, unless one of these companies is going after everyone, there really is no actual attempt at holding the industry ransom.
Heck, if anyone is honestly starting to hold a full industry random now it's Rambus. They won a patent and are now going after anyone that used for nearly 10 years what became an industry standard. THAT is holding an industry random through patents.
Point being: at this point you can't tell if the one trying to hold an industry random is Apple for suing HTC, or Motorola by suing Apple. This makes my point far from irrelevant as it's simply a point on WHO is trying to do this.
Also, if you look back at the history of litigation, Apple was sort of forced to get into patenting the hell up after being sued left and right for iPod patent infringements.
Finally: IANAL, nor have I looked at the patents in question, and for the most part do not agree with software patents (software should only be protected by copyright, imo), but I do find hardware patents to be valid. If some one invents a true new technology, and patents it, he is in the right to sue anyone that attempts to profit on their invention without permissions.
The sad truth is these days companies get their hands in competing products, dissect them, find out how they work, and try to steal ideas. In the process very often they miss patent protection, in others they do research and only copy that stuff that the manufacturer did not manage to patent.
When it comes to large corporations as HTC, Motorola, Apple or Microsoft, no one is a poor helpless guy that deserves our pity, They all get themselves into these situations very consciously. These are not Patent Trolls, nor bullies stepping on the small guy. These are giants trying to steal from each-other and fighting back when caught.
If I understand the PDF in the article properly, Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered. If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.
I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue.
I'll make this easy for you, with fewer words so you cant blame missing it in a wall of text:
I give my credit card information to Zinio and they feed my little iPad application with said magazines, in a subscription model.
That is: magazine subscriptions. With the iPad (or iPod or iPhone.) Not managed by Apple.
Same holds true for Netflix and Hulu+, btw, between others, mainly newspaper publications that grant "free" access to their digital releases if you subscribe to the paper version.
In the risk of making this post too long and making the previous points too hidden (for a second time) I also want to let you know that Single Magazine Apps that rely on newsstand per-issue sales are doing so because that's what they choose. They can just as easily sell you, in one click, a full year of issues.
But you would need to have a clue what is being talked about to realize all this, by now your ignorance have proven you don't own any of these devices and are riding the "must hate that thing called Apple even if i have never seen one" train of thought.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the submitters responsibility to make sure they have the right to put the software they submit into the AppStore. Apple does not take any license agreement documents from you when you submit, they just warn you that you must be the owner of the stuff you put there. If licensing or copyright issues emerge, the app will be taken down and the publisher may suffer penalties.
If there is any issue with the license, the developers should had found them, not Apple.
As far as I understand, the only issue was one of redistribution, something that is a bit stupid when all you need to do to "redistribute" a free app is let any iOS owner know about it for them to download it.
I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior. All I ask is that the device I pay for allow me to use it as I please instead of requiring the company's permission for each little chunk of code that executes. Give me just that and I'll be happy to buy.
This makes no sense... this "behavior" is exclusive to iOS app distribution. Why would anyone stop using Macs due to this? It's like me refusing to use Windows because the Zune sucks or refusing to use Gmail because of google refusing to do anything about the Android Fragmentation issues.
Any device can play any media it is programmed to. Apple is not against it playing back any form of media. There are other media players that can play multiple formats. I use ZumoCast, that is able to play back any video format I have tossed at it, but unfortunately it got bought out by Motorola (who removed it from the App store and is preparing to make it exclusive to it's own Android phones) and have also used Air Video. The later can stream any format via live conversion, but does not store them locally, it can play back over the internet, though, making me not even need to have anything in my device anyways (ZumoCast also allows this.)
This is not about Apple not wanting this, it is about a VLC contributor that happens to work at Nokia making a big licensing deal and forcing Apple to take the app down.
They guy who requested VLC be pulled works for Nokia. So you do the math as to why Apple was asked to remove an app Nokia had power over...
I don't know why this post got moded down. It is true it overshoot by stating "Nokia had power over" the application, but it is true the developer works for Nokia and it is very unlikely the guy can be considered the most objective of parties in this discussion.
Free software is compatible with the AppStore. Heck, the App Store is even compatible with Open Source. This is all just the result of one whiny developer that decided he hated iOS and decided to make it his personal project to toss a low punch at both, iOS owners and MobileVLC developers by arguing over terms of use.
Rémi Denis-Courmont says he has no sympathy for no one affected by this. But what can you expect from a Nokia software engineer. Objectivity is the last thing I would expect from someone in such a position. I would like to know what is the opinion of the rest of the VLC development team.
Next thing, they will collect our data and sell it, and they will also drive by our houses and take photos, videos, and even record wifi network data! We must stop Apple before they get that far!!!
To add (if this forum has an edit button I cant' find it) it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.
100% of the market has access to Androids, yet the iPhone has enough marketing power to be a challenge, and for a long time (and in many weeks/quarters) beat them.
This is like 4 guys bragging that they finally won a fight against one single guy, after they technically lost that same 4 to 1 fight 3 years in a row. How things will go in a 4 vs 2, I ponder?
You're just plain wrong. Android phones have been by far outselling the iPhone, and they just recently surpassed the total iPhone sales numbers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/01/05/androids-users-eclipse-iphones-for-first-time-comscore-says/
I would like to see more significant numbers. How is the iPhone doing compared to other Android Phones within ATT? After all, no one goes out saying that Sprint HTC Android phones are loosing market because the combination of all other smart-phones across all carriers is greater.
Things will get much more interesting once iPhones become available outside of ATT.
I am crazy and all that, but I actually enjoy ads in magazines. I mean, as long as they don't enforce any timer that locks me in the ad, I actually enjoy catching up with new products through nice looking full page advertisement in magazines. They tend to gravitate in topic of the magazine in question, anyways, and chances are I may be interested in whatever they are selling.
What I oppose is the high price many digital magazines have picked. Printed magazines must cover paper and ink costs, and the ads help cover those. Digital distribution barely cost them anything (it is not free either, though) and pricing should reflect this.
The fact that I cant keep a magazine around as a collector's item, nor can I just give it away to a friend, are things that take a bit of value away from the product, too, and these factors make it harder for me to spend the same amount for a purely digital product (magazine/game/whatever) than for a physical one.
Although not magazines, I bought some digital comics on my iPad, mostly to test the waters. Although I enjoyed them, I disliked the high price for extremely old back-issues, in many cases higher than original cover price! And ironically, I missed ads. Today I still grab old comics and it feels like the best testimonial of it's age are the ads that serve to remind me that, yes, the frigging thing was bought when the NES was still popular.
When did indie games start dictating industry trends?
I didn't say they did. But are there any other PC games you can think of, whether major label or indie, supporting same-screen co-op on a home theater PC?
I fail to see the relevance to the topic in question. PC games have always been single-player centric, or lan/web-focused. That's nothing new.
The article in question is talking about the disappearance of the coop, and the wording seems to imply its exclusively talking about console and arcade gaming.
I can understand if you are making a side point, but not one that is directly related to the story.
If you see it that way, then they are split screen even in single player as they (Rock Band and GH) always split between the rolling collors view and the music band view. This band view, though, never gets split for multiplayer, instead tends to dinamically spotlight best or worst performers.
When did indie games start dictating industry trends?
Indie games strugle to go to market with a limited budget, its more than understandable if they are not designed to support such features, specially if they are PC ports.
This. Who needs split screen to play Rock Band with friends? How about New Super Mario Bros?
But some games, like Racing games and FPS, are really not viable without split screen, and I always hated that unavoidable fact.
That said, I got to poke holes into TFA. From TFA:
Games such as Donkey Kong Country, GoldenEye, Halo 1 and 2, Mario Kart, Twisted Metal 2 were the meat and potatoes of co-op games.
From the list they mentioned, the new Wii Goldeneye supports Split Screen.
Donkey Kong Returns also supports 2 player coop, no split screen required.
The latest halo game, Reach, also supports Split Screen.
Mario Kart supports Split Screen.
I have not seen a Twisted Metal game out in ages, and would love to see a new one, but last non-combat racer I played had at least 2 player split screen support.
In the end, the article does not even list games that he hates to be missing Co-Op, it does go on to claim Arcades seem to be lacking co-op, but the only point it ends up having is that Bet-Em-Ups (the games he list) seem to be nowhere to be seen in the arcade room. These days Arcades are dominated by fighters, racing games (that in the arcade room have ALWAYS delivered multiplayer via networking and multi-booth setups) and gun games that tend to always support two player modes.
I ponder if it was posted by a kid that was upset due to one specific shooter not supporting split screen, nothing new since I recal reviews of forgetable shooters in the PSX (that had me properly forget their names) complaining the lack of coop modes.
Maybe he is upset about the rising number of story-driven games that don't force a second player on screen. Its hard to tell because he didnt bother to make his point, TFA is reduced to a cenile old man whining about "The Good Old Days"
Great, now I can enjoy erotic and arousing pat-downs on my way to pick up my date a couple miles away! :D
They removed that statement from their user's Kindels too.
Take your facts and common sense somewhere else, this is slashdot!!! Burn them for not supporting Linux playback! :P
Firs off, Apple's multiple-touch patent is very specific to one implementation,
As for the other comments, I think the distinction of hardware and software is much more clear than you make it look. Compiled code? Software. Microchip? Hardware.
Sure, I can make software that technically gives the same results as some hardware, but results are not patentable.
Oh and "business practice" patents are ridiculously absurd, as are ridiculous "method off doing whatever" patents.
Patents should be restricted to physical inventions.
But that is the thing, it's not about "Porting to Android" anymore, it becomes about "Porting for Specific Device".
Carmack wrote Rage not for the iOS, but specifically for the two GPUs the iOS currently runs on. He even made note that had he known more on the specs he may had just gone to support the latest one (shared by iPhone 3gs, 4, iPod 3rdGen, 4rthGen, iPad)
With Android, you have a huge array of specs, and measuring the CPU speed alone is not enough, you need more info on each unit and their GPU, so you end not porting to "Android", you port to specific hardware that happens to run Android (BTW is there any resource by Google on how many Android installs run what CPU/GPU? I know they have screen size and version distribution data but I have not seen anything on CPU/GPU.)
A standarized label of sort may help, but they may refuse to go that path as it may be a public acknowledgement of their current hardware fragmentation "issues", wich they claim do not exist.
Actually, he did:
Even in the old days of the feature phone world, we always had EA Mobile or JAMDAT to build the 300 or 400 SKUs that they had for all the worldwide feature phone splits that we had from our four base versions. And we may yet wind up partnering with somebody else to do that level of broad support, but that's a little less satisfying when we're doing something that's pushing the limit graphically, because you don't have a second-tier company port your stuff to other graphics architectures and expect it to remain cutting-edge.
He is talking there about having some one else deal with the "fragmentation" or "splits", but also mentions it is not really an option with such graphically intensive games.
What is it with these companies, that they cannot stand having to compete on equal terms?
But what are "equal terms"? We don't live in a communist nation (at least I don't) if I come up with an invention, and I actually go so far as manufacturing, it's not really fair that my competitors can just copy it and market it.
Apple (and any other corporation) either spent a lot of money in research and development to come up with technologies like Multi-Touch capacitive screens (one of the patents being disputed), or they had to pay a lot of money to buy out the companies that did (and trust me, these bought out companies where glad they got bought.) Why should I not protect my created or purchased invention?
Actually, "Equal terms" would mean that they, too, must go through the same process and create all new tech, not that they should just automatically be entitled to compete with my product by duplicating mine.
The original intent of patents was precisely to incentivize inventions in this way, justifying research and development investment with an exclusivity use window. I heavily disagree with software patents, as I (as a programmer) can't see software as inventions but instead as copyrightable content, however I agree with hardware patents as they sort of do their job more than they get in the way. Without patents you would have huge companies just sitting around, monitoring the moves of the small guys, letting the small guys waste their money in R&D and then just steal the ideas and squash the small guy in the market.
Until anyone wins, it has not been proven anyone can hold the entire industry under "patently absurd ransoms".
Also, unless one of these companies is going after everyone, there really is no actual attempt at holding the industry ransom.
Heck, if anyone is honestly starting to hold a full industry random now it's Rambus. They won a patent and are now going after anyone that used for nearly 10 years what became an industry standard. THAT is holding an industry random through patents.
Point being: at this point you can't tell if the one trying to hold an industry random is Apple for suing HTC, or Motorola by suing Apple. This makes my point far from irrelevant as it's simply a point on WHO is trying to do this.
Also, if you look back at the history of litigation, Apple was sort of forced to get into patenting the hell up after being sued left and right for iPod patent infringements.
Finally: IANAL, nor have I looked at the patents in question, and for the most part do not agree with software patents (software should only be protected by copyright, imo), but I do find hardware patents to be valid. If some one invents a true new technology, and patents it, he is in the right to sue anyone that attempts to profit on their invention without permissions.
The sad truth is these days companies get their hands in competing products, dissect them, find out how they work, and try to steal ideas. In the process very often they miss patent protection, in others they do research and only copy that stuff that the manufacturer did not manage to patent.
When it comes to large corporations as HTC, Motorola, Apple or Microsoft, no one is a poor helpless guy that deserves our pity, They all get themselves into these situations very consciously. These are not Patent Trolls, nor bullies stepping on the small guy. These are giants trying to steal from each-other and fighting back when caught.
If I understand the PDF in the article properly, Apple only went after HTC. Motorola then jumped Apple for other reasons and Apple countered. If Apple was initiating all the lawsuits, I'd say this was true, but that does not seem to be the case.
You stopped reading earlier since it was already said in the previous post and you didn't see it.
I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue.
I'll make this easy for you, with fewer words so you cant blame missing it in a wall of text:
I give my credit card information to Zinio and they feed my little iPad application with said magazines, in a subscription model.
That is: magazine subscriptions. With the iPad (or iPod or iPhone.) Not managed by Apple.
Same holds true for Netflix and Hulu+, btw, between others, mainly newspaper publications that grant "free" access to their digital releases if you subscribe to the paper version.
In the risk of making this post too long and making the previous points too hidden (for a second time) I also want to let you know that Single Magazine Apps that rely on newsstand per-issue sales are doing so because that's what they choose. They can just as easily sell you, in one click, a full year of issues.
But you would need to have a clue what is being talked about to realize all this, by now your ignorance have proven you don't own any of these devices and are riding the "must hate that thing called Apple even if i have never seen one" train of thought.
Hmm, I don't think Apple is saying anything. This was not a press release by Apple, you know.