The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.
...
The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.
And again you derail. You may have missed it, but the story in question is a rumor on magazine publishers wanting more from apple for their upcoming magazine subscription service than Apple is willing to give.
We don't know much from this, as far as we know it may be an app like iBooks (or even just iBooks) with a Subscribe button.
No publisher is complaining about anything in the context of this discussion, all we know is that supposedly they are holding back on the venue because Apple is not willing to spill out consumer data.
Right now any magazine publisher can make magazines for the iOS devices and sell individual issues, as far as I know they can even sell "subscriptions" this way, this is what leads me to believe the service in question is just going to be a iMagazine app or something like that, a centralized hub exclusively for magazines where publishers wont have to fight over attention with other apps.
Oh and at the end of the day, there ARE third party magazine apps for the iPhone. I think the sector is "dominated" by Zino, a free downloaded app that sells magazine subscriptions.
It is true that Apple controls app distribution to the device, but they have no lockdown in books/magazine distributions. The presence off Kindle and Nook stores (not to mention other comic book stores) on top of the iBooks one are testament to that. Existence of apps like Netflix and Hulu+ also prove that Apple wont lock down competing video services or force their billing to go through Apple's billing.
Apple is [preparing] offering a service, and Apple will be entrusted by it's consumers with their data and Apple refuses to share that data. If the magazine publishers refuse to move on without this data, well, they have options like Zinio. Magazines like National Geographic, Rolling Stone and The Economist already sell there.
So, as I stated before: your post is a derail as it's a rant on Apple's app market and makes no sense in the context of magazine publications.
And you seriously think magazines have not offered them money yet? I would not be shocked if magazines have already even offered Apple a larger cut in exchange.
Apple has been rather vocal about privacy. Or at least Steve Jobs has. I admit I am not confident of this staying so forever, but I feel safe as long as Steve Jobs is in charge.
Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.
Here is the deal, though: most (sensible) anti-corporation people that complain about personal data do so precisely because they dislike their data being shared afterwards. Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it.
I used to think this way, about touch, until I played games on an iPhone. Side scrollers, top down, and even shooters play great with on-screen touch gamepads. Heck, off late I play more on my iPod than I do on the xbox.
I can't wait until Epic Games releases their engine for iOS development.
I don't think a ps phone will work well, specially if it's running android. Not because quality issues, but because Sony will be not just fighting against the iPhone, but also against every other android phone out there.
Did you look at the game's page? It's all copied, not just "imitated". Identical maze, identical characters, I didnt bother counting the dots but would not be shocked if they are the same count. To tip things off, he himself calls it Pac Man in his patch notes and updates.
He did not even bother to change the colors of the player character or the ghosts, they are exactly the same colors as the 4 ghosts in every single incarnation of the game.
Google's market is, well, a market. It's not a repository. What this means? Google is selling the products you provide. If they don't cooperate, they are just as likely to be held liable. This is not like hosting videos or blogs that some one else uploaded to your open hosting site. This is direct profiting from potentially copyright infringement. You can't expect Google to sit back and wait for a lawsuit to pull the app out. Instead they freeze the app until you can prove it's not infringing.
From your own comments, in your own game, in the link you provided:
Game running slowly on your phone:
- Try shutting down any other CPU-intensive apps.
- Try switching off optional graphics e.g. arrows.
Pacman too slow:
Pacman now moves faster (from V1.05). In later levels, some of the ghosts may move faster then Pacman.
I dont wish a lawsuit on you, but should you get yourself in one, it will be well deserved. Your best bet is to just back off and hope they don't take any further legal action against you. The court costs alone will kill you, your own comments already labeled you guilty.
Sorry, if you even look at the game's page, it's not just "look and feel", it's just a blantant copy. It's identical in every way. Ghost are the same, yellow guy is the same, maps are the same. It's exactly the same game. Just because he re-programmed it instead of plainly copying it does not change the outcome, it's the same frigging game. He just went the extra mile to copy it.
Oh and the game is called Super Pac. That's just an abreviation of Super Pac-Man!
What about character design? Because after following the link the article provided, I can't see a single difference between a Pac Man screenshot and Super Pac. Exactly the same maps, same ghost designs and same main character design.
That is not to mention the name itself, Super Pac, may not be complete but anyone can take that as an abreviation to Super Pac-Man.
Honestly, I feel no sympathy for these situations. How can you protect yourself? Inovate. At the very least change the look of the characters, and would also be nice if you changed the map layouts to be original and added new mechanics. Make enough changes so that no one that sits to play the game without seeing the title can say "Oh, it's Pac Man!"
What enterprise momentum in the cloud sector? What CIO is seriously going to shunt critical infrastructure into some cloud environment? Seriously? Who? Backups...maybe? Personal photos and email? Of course. But, trade secrets? Human Resources info? Salaries and performance evaluations? To the cloud? Really?
Depends how you define cloud. I love virtualization, and my company (not small at all) does too. It's not about email or online office though, it's about a full blown desktop and storage that you log in as if you were connecting to a Remote Desktop Connection. Your travel laptop with all your files fails? Good thing all those files are actually in the "business cloud", along with all your programs and settings. Just get a new laptop fed-ex'ed or temporarily log in with another machine to the VPN and keep on running.
Since I'm here, I also got to say I do, sort of, agree with Microsoft in this one. I would rather trust my entire world to Microsoft (And I hate them) before I entrust confidential information to Google's snooping services.
The limitation of not being able to disable add-ons from the UI is not something that HAS to be so, besides, the activation off the plugin can be put off until a user agrees to it's presence.
After all, if Google, MS and Apple are doing it, imagine what more malicious software can sneak in.
Exactly what I was thinking. How about they stop being enablers and turn those stealth instals into install requests the user can turn down immediately?
They don't need to know exactly who used the computer, they just need the external IP address and the time of download. With that they can contact the ISP and get the household that was doing this.
If the people download it from their work computers, IT will get a notification, from there it may be hard to track down the actual user. But at a household, it's not hard to just know it was the household.
This can potentially be tracked with custom made software that request data but tosses it out as it recieves it, never storing or sharing it back. This software would then log the IP address and time of all packet transactions.
I'm sure they dont just go out and run a torrent and seed stuff and occationally look at the IP list, this would result in them not catching a lot of seeders or leachers.
The poster in question said he didn't need to make money out of programming because he had a day job. That, at first hand, sounds like some one with great Football skills saying he plays for free in aficionado leagues and cares not about playing in the NFL because he has a dayjob at BK that pays the bills.
He later clarified that his "day job" as he called at first, is his career, which he loves (I never heard anyone call a career a "day job" (plainly "job" yea but not "day job") unless they are forced to use it to finance what they consider their true job, or because they are forced to maintain two and need to make the distinction, but to each his own.)
That aside, not many realize how much money they can make by writting software. I recently was reading an article (cant find it right now) about a company that made a program for the iPad that was at best just "moderately successful" and the team still made 100,000 in 4 months. That's 25k a month, not a millionaire success that would make the press, but more than doctors tend to make (albeit, in this case it was a team of unmentioned size so not sure how much money ended up on every developer's hands.)
I also seen quite a few blogs about developers that claim they make enough money to make a living out of it without becoming millionaires or even being able to pay off a mortgage.
The point is, "moderate success" is not as rare as people think it is in the Apple App Store. This is not as common thinking as you appear to guess. It seems people that have not tried or done research on it think it's either huge success or no money at all.
OK, just to put things in perspective, read this statement made by John Carmack on Rage for the iOS:
It is just so much more pleasant to develop for the iOS market than for the traditional feature phones," he told me. "Being able to work on a more constrained project now and then is rewarding in a lot of ways, and of the available small platforms, I think that the iOS platform is clearly the best. We're keeping our eyes on the Android market; we'll be freeing up our first application internally on that pretty soon, but there's a lot of things with how the distribution platform works and the diversity of the platforms that you have to target, where things are still much, much nicer on the iOS world."
Even Carmack is putting subtle emphasis on the fragmentation issues. I think the issue is most fandroids (and Google) is that they all take the attack to be at the OS. Although there IS an OS fragmentation, the real issue is with the hardware diversity. That's a double edge sword, in one hand it brings options, and options are good. In another, it makes game development harder.
Slashdot Mirror
The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.
...
The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.
And again you derail. You may have missed it, but the story in question is a rumor on magazine publishers wanting more from apple for their upcoming magazine subscription service than Apple is willing to give.
We don't know much from this, as far as we know it may be an app like iBooks (or even just iBooks) with a Subscribe button.
No publisher is complaining about anything in the context of this discussion, all we know is that supposedly they are holding back on the venue because Apple is not willing to spill out consumer data.
Right now any magazine publisher can make magazines for the iOS devices and sell individual issues, as far as I know they can even sell "subscriptions" this way, this is what leads me to believe the service in question is just going to be a iMagazine app or something like that, a centralized hub exclusively for magazines where publishers wont have to fight over attention with other apps.
Oh and at the end of the day, there ARE third party magazine apps for the iPhone. I think the sector is "dominated" by Zino, a free downloaded app that sells magazine subscriptions.
It is true that Apple controls app distribution to the device, but they have no lockdown in books/magazine distributions. The presence off Kindle and Nook stores (not to mention other comic book stores) on top of the iBooks one are testament to that. Existence of apps like Netflix and Hulu+ also prove that Apple wont lock down competing video services or force their billing to go through Apple's billing.
Apple is [preparing] offering a service, and Apple will be entrusted by it's consumers with their data and Apple refuses to share that data. If the magazine publishers refuse to move on without this data, well, they have options like Zinio. Magazines like National Geographic, Rolling Stone and The Economist already sell there.
So, as I stated before: your post is a derail as it's a rant on Apple's app market and makes no sense in the context of magazine publications.
And you seriously think magazines have not offered them money yet? I would not be shocked if magazines have already even offered Apple a larger cut in exchange.
Apple has been rather vocal about privacy. Or at least Steve Jobs has. I admit I am not confident of this staying so forever, but I feel safe as long as Steve Jobs is in charge.
This is what I call an epic derail.
Jobs has been very public about his distaste on personal data sharing.
You heard the man! If you don't like Apple protecting user data, go to a platform that does not!
Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.
Here is the deal, though: most (sensible) anti-corporation people that complain about personal data do so precisely because they dislike their data being shared afterwards. Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it.
I used to think this way, about touch, until I played games on an iPhone. Side scrollers, top down, and even shooters play great with on-screen touch gamepads. Heck, off late I play more on my iPod than I do on the xbox.
I can't wait until Epic Games releases their engine for iOS development.
I don't think a ps phone will work well, specially if it's running android. Not because quality issues, but because Sony will be not just fighting against the iPhone, but also against every other android phone out there.
Wait, it isn't?
Let me guess... Tin hat for Christmas?
Did you look at the game's page? It's all copied, not just "imitated". Identical maze, identical characters, I didnt bother counting the dots but would not be shocked if they are the same count. To tip things off, he himself calls it Pac Man in his patch notes and updates.
He did not even bother to change the colors of the player character or the ghosts, they are exactly the same colors as the 4 ghosts in every single incarnation of the game.
He said it was not Pacman, but he calls it Pacman in his own patch-notes!!!
Google's market is, well, a market. It's not a repository. What this means? Google is selling the products you provide. If they don't cooperate, they are just as likely to be held liable. This is not like hosting videos or blogs that some one else uploaded to your open hosting site. This is direct profiting from potentially copyright infringement. You can't expect Google to sit back and wait for a lawsuit to pull the app out. Instead they freeze the app until you can prove it's not infringing.
You, honestly, are a huge hypocrite.
From your own comments, in your own game, in the link you provided:
Game running slowly on your phone: .
- Try shutting down any other CPU-intensive apps.
- Try switching off optional graphics e.g. arrows.
Pacman too slow:
Pacman now moves faster (from V1.05). In later levels, some of the ghosts may move faster then Pacman
I dont wish a lawsuit on you, but should you get yourself in one, it will be well deserved. Your best bet is to just back off and hope they don't take any further legal action against you. The court costs alone will kill you, your own comments already labeled you guilty.
He will also take your money and you will loose.
If you happen to meet a honest lawyer, though, he will laugh you out off the office.
This post deserves moding up.
Sorry, if you even look at the game's page, it's not just "look and feel", it's just a blantant copy. It's identical in every way. Ghost are the same, yellow guy is the same, maps are the same. It's exactly the same game. Just because he re-programmed it instead of plainly copying it does not change the outcome, it's the same frigging game. He just went the extra mile to copy it.
Oh and the game is called Super Pac. That's just an abreviation of Super Pac-Man!
What about character design? Because after following the link the article provided, I can't see a single difference between a Pac Man screenshot and Super Pac. Exactly the same maps, same ghost designs and same main character design.
That is not to mention the name itself, Super Pac, may not be complete but anyone can take that as an abreviation to Super Pac-Man.
Honestly, I feel no sympathy for these situations. How can you protect yourself? Inovate. At the very least change the look of the characters, and would also be nice if you changed the map layouts to be original and added new mechanics. Make enough changes so that no one that sits to play the game without seeing the title can say "Oh, it's Pac Man!"
What enterprise momentum in the cloud sector? What CIO is seriously going to shunt critical infrastructure into some cloud environment? Seriously? Who? Backups...maybe? Personal photos and email? Of course. But, trade secrets? Human Resources info? Salaries and performance evaluations? To the cloud? Really?
Depends how you define cloud. I love virtualization, and my company (not small at all) does too. It's not about email or online office though, it's about a full blown desktop and storage that you log in as if you were connecting to a Remote Desktop Connection. Your travel laptop with all your files fails? Good thing all those files are actually in the "business cloud", along with all your programs and settings. Just get a new laptop fed-ex'ed or temporarily log in with another machine to the VPN and keep on running.
Since I'm here, I also got to say I do, sort of, agree with Microsoft in this one. I would rather trust my entire world to Microsoft (And I hate them) before I entrust confidential information to Google's snooping services.
The limitation of not being able to disable add-ons from the UI is not something that HAS to be so, besides, the activation off the plugin can be put off until a user agrees to it's presence.
After all, if Google, MS and Apple are doing it, imagine what more malicious software can sneak in.
Exactly what I was thinking. How about they stop being enablers and turn those stealth instals into install requests the user can turn down immediately?
They don't need to know exactly who used the computer, they just need the external IP address and the time of download. With that they can contact the ISP and get the household that was doing this.
If the people download it from their work computers, IT will get a notification, from there it may be hard to track down the actual user. But at a household, it's not hard to just know it was the household.
This can potentially be tracked with custom made software that request data but tosses it out as it recieves it, never storing or sharing it back. This software would then log the IP address and time of all packet transactions.
I'm sure they dont just go out and run a torrent and seed stuff and occationally look at the IP list, this would result in them not catching a lot of seeders or leachers.
The poster in question said he didn't need to make money out of programming because he had a day job. That, at first hand, sounds like some one with great Football skills saying he plays for free in aficionado leagues and cares not about playing in the NFL because he has a dayjob at BK that pays the bills.
He later clarified that his "day job" as he called at first, is his career, which he loves (I never heard anyone call a career a "day job" (plainly "job" yea but not "day job") unless they are forced to use it to finance what they consider their true job, or because they are forced to maintain two and need to make the distinction, but to each his own.)
That aside, not many realize how much money they can make by writting software. I recently was reading an article (cant find it right now) about a company that made a program for the iPad that was at best just "moderately successful" and the team still made 100,000 in 4 months. That's 25k a month, not a millionaire success that would make the press, but more than doctors tend to make (albeit, in this case it was a team of unmentioned size so not sure how much money ended up on every developer's hands.)
I also seen quite a few blogs about developers that claim they make enough money to make a living out of it without becoming millionaires or even being able to pay off a mortgage.
The point is, "moderate success" is not as rare as people think it is in the Apple App Store. This is not as common thinking as you appear to guess. It seems people that have not tried or done research on it think it's either huge success or no money at all.
It is just so much more pleasant to develop for the iOS market than for the traditional feature phones," he told me. "Being able to work on a more constrained project now and then is rewarding in a lot of ways, and of the available small platforms, I think that the iOS platform is clearly the best. We're keeping our eyes on the Android market; we'll be freeing up our first application internally on that pretty soon, but there's a lot of things with how the distribution platform works and the diversity of the platforms that you have to target, where things are still much, much nicer on the iOS world."
Even Carmack is putting subtle emphasis on the fragmentation issues. I think the issue is most fandroids (and Google) is that they all take the attack to be at the OS. Although there IS an OS fragmentation, the real issue is with the hardware diversity. That's a double edge sword, in one hand it brings options, and options are good. In another, it makes game development harder.