The only reason Apple is doing this is to keep its store's apps, music, and video selling. If there was Flash, everybody would just play Flash games and stream Flash music and video -- just like they do on PCs.
But even after all of this grief it will mean nothing. Once web technologies evolve the web will be a foundation for apps, music, and video. Just like with Flash today but under a different name. Apple's store will just be a steaming pile. And for what? A few years of having your customers locked into your content?
The only result is slowing down innovation of the web. Unless you call moving to an open technology with none of the features 'innovation'. Nice job Apple.
It wouldn't be a problem if Apple developed an open technology to replace Flash. But they wouldn't do that because it would kill their store.
You're making it sound a lot easier than it is. Just look at the satellite TV hacking scene as a parallel. As soon as they change a code it can take months in order to watch anything again.
Server handshaking is the most secure way and that's why Ubisoft has chosen this route. You can probably expect many more companies to do this in the future.
Something tells me that even if it was working correctly you'd still be complaining about it. Why is it necessary that the remove it and not just improve it? Do you have that much of a grudge against DRM, or do you just not want to pay for games?
The only way to implement secure and effective DRM may be through the use of server handshaking. I understand that. But these publishers really need to understand that not everyone has a connection all of the time. Even when customers do have a connection it can be faulty and thus cause them problems.
I'm OK with DRM. Just make it not affect my gameplay.
On Android you can allow change the setting in Applications/Unknown Sources to allow apps not from the Marketplace. After that, just install OTA from any web page serving Android apps. No SDK required.
Apple has complete control over its store. Even though it is not a monopoly by definition, it is still an unsettling issue.
One side of the story is that all computing systems should be open markets. There is nothing stopping someone from making controversial applications or websites for PCs and Macs. Yes, if you made a site about making bombs it may be illegal, but for the most part the restrictions reasonable. The controlled computing market is a threat that hurts both developers in what they can produce, and also the software market by funneling all profits to a single source: the controller (Apple).
The other side of the story is that companies have the right to restrict what runs on their products. Nintendo, PlayStation, and Microsoft all control what games can run on their gaming machines. This has already set a precedent that essentially allows Apple to do the same with the iPhone. For the most part this creates a clean market of software for consumers but not necessarily one with quality. Case in point: PlayStation 1, like the iPhone, had a lot of crap apps but also some of the best ones at the time.
Do Nintendo, Microsoft, and PlayStation take cuts from all applications sold on their platforms? Probably although I don't know the answer.
I think the bottom line is that smartphones are full computing platforms these days. And if computing platforms are not open then there is a serious threat to the freedom of information and the use of computers in general around the world. I would half expect laws to come into place to prevent discrimination of applications and information on all devices with the computing power.
There is nothing wrong with Adobe developing the cross-compiler and Apple's new portion of the agreement is unlawful. The reason is because Adobe is just using public standards.
This is as if Apple said "We support JPEGs on our platform!" expecting everyone to use their JPEG-creating software. Then Adobe comes along and says "We can help you make those JPEGs! But they will look even better! And they'll still follow exactly the same specs and standards as regular JPEGs!" Then Apple's like "Oh, but you can't use JPEGs created by Adobe's software." If Apple wants to investigate every single JPEG and make sure it isn't made with Adobe's software, they certainly can. And they can reject as many JPEGs as they want.
The problem is that these are public standards. You can make C/C++ source files with one app and compile them in another. There is nothing Apple can do to stop you.
I call scare crow. The clause in the agreement is ridiculous and nigh unenforceable anyway.
Furthermore, this is akin to if Apple decided to block certain websites from its customers. You can be sure that they'd get a ripping in court if they tried that.
Isn't Apple being a hypocrite here? Apple allows apps written in C/C++ but those, when designed correctly, can be ported to/from another supporting platform (ie: Android) in a matter of days. Furthermore Apple has a web browser and has been touting support for web apps and HTML5, yet the web is a definition of cross-platform content. There are plenty of tools and frameworks in web development (ie: Dreamweaver) that allow you to make websites easily. Apple allows those websites.
This isn't *quite* as bad as Palm lying about their USB id's in order to piggy-back on Apple's success, but it's pretty darn close.
So Adobe porting Flash to iPhone using allowed APIs is just as bad as using a software hack to add support for your devices. I don't know what you're smoking, but...
If Adobe want to play, they need to bring something that excites the user-base
"Cross-platform". The web is cross platform and Apple still supports that. But not Flash?
I think we all agree that it would be silly for Apple to allow the iPhone to become dependent on Flash, then have to make changes, or even pay a ransom, to Adobe in order to keep adobe from sabotaging the platform.
What are you talking about? For one, why would Apple's platform become dependent of Flash? Flash is a niche platform on the web and has been for some time until the web went video crazy. That's right, the web. Not the app store, the web. It is naive to think that Flash apps converted to iPhone would tump iPhone-specific apps in the first place.
Second, why would Adobe sabotage Apple? Adobe has generally kept pretty neutral. If anything, Apple is sabotaging openness.
Again, not defending the license agreement, just refuting silly statements.
Third person view is implemented in vehicle games so you can see the extent of your car/plane/F-zero and not hit stuff. You could make a game where there was no third-person view, and you were forced to learn through practice with your full view inside the vehicle. But this would be hard to implement and not as fun.
While this does mean that the mechanics are going to be a bit different from "real" racing, it doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned. There's going to be a learning curve to anything you have to control, virtual or real. As long as the physics are not generous like an arcade racer, I'd say it would still give racers a leg up.
Religion often reflects our fundamental questions about us, the world, and the universe. Scientists attempting to explain what happens after we die seems like a great candidate to me. It's also a question that religions around the world have attempted to answer. Coincidentally, a lot of them have answered this question in much the same way: afterlife.
Now maybe trying to explain Moses' parting the sea is akin to explaining a stunt in a Terminator movie, but that's not one of the great questions now is it?
The things teens mostly do on computers these days is chatting, listening to music, and browsing the web. All at the same time. This is trivial. No I'm no teenager, but until the iPad can do this, why would I want one?
Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.
Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple? Promoting a successful (and free to the consumer) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.
Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.
Why? If it weren't for applets and Flash, innovation on the Internet would be stale. The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind. There would be no Penny Arcade, no Youtube, no Hulu, no Facebook apps. The only reason open technologies are approaching (barely) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.
Don't you know how this usually works? Companies see a chance for profit, develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years. Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity, upon which the open source version might be successful. In fact, it's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML, CSS, and the like.
I don't see this as a bad thing. But honestly, why is Google doing this? I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download, install Flash, and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.
I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone. Google has stakes in Flash, such as their charts on Google Finance. Google also may have done this in response to Apple's new plans for advertising. And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content. If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process, Google may loose one of its huge cash cows. In the end, Google doesn't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies.
How is targeting 2 or 3 consoles (Wii is usually left out of the loop for games worth mentioning) more difficult than targeting enormous different combinations of PC hardware? The amount of testing required for a PC game alone rips apart your argument.
Actually there is a fair bit of market analysis that goes into pricing digital media. It's a balancing act. Obviously raising and raising the price would only cause more piracy.
Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.
It's not necessary for the game seller, Person A in my story, to use the money to buy another game. He bought the first game knowing that he'd be able to sell it. This lowered both his perceived and real cost of the game at the time of his purchase, possibly to a point lower than his perceived utility enabling the original purchase to occur.
You're talking about real cost of the game, I'm talking about the publisher making money off of used game sales. Yes, the real cost to the gamer is reduced when he can sell his game, but the publisher still makes no money, which was point of my post.
I didn't get your example in the previous post when I made the piracy connection, but after your second explanation I see what you are getting at.
Pricing the game to account for the market (used sales, piracy rates, whatever) doesn't mean that the publishers make money from used game sales. It just means that they price the game to account for those used game sales.
Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.
By your logic the publishers make money off of pirates because they raised the price of their game to account for the pirates. (And no, lets not get into whether or not a pirate would pay for it because that's a whole 'nother ball game.)
A better model for publishers would be for users to send their game back to the publisher in exchange for a discount on another game of theirs. This would boost brand loyalty for the customer, provide a more constant revenue stream for the publisher, and also allow for a publisher-centric used game market.
Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?
Yes it is different. For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time. As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine, you're in the clear. But it's an act of pure faith.
The key difference is the one-time use codes. However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason Apple is doing this is to keep its store's apps, music, and video selling. If there was Flash, everybody would just play Flash games and stream Flash music and video -- just like they do on PCs.
But even after all of this grief it will mean nothing. Once web technologies evolve the web will be a foundation for apps, music, and video. Just like with Flash today but under a different name. Apple's store will just be a steaming pile. And for what? A few years of having your customers locked into your content?
The only result is slowing down innovation of the web. Unless you call moving to an open technology with none of the features 'innovation'. Nice job Apple.
It wouldn't be a problem if Apple developed an open technology to replace Flash. But they wouldn't do that because it would kill their store.
...
...
...
Mod +-0 pedantic.
Mod +1 Hero
You're making it sound a lot easier than it is. Just look at the satellite TV hacking scene as a parallel. As soon as they change a code it can take months in order to watch anything again.
Server handshaking is the most secure way and that's why Ubisoft has chosen this route. You can probably expect many more companies to do this in the future.
You're assuming that people who would just pirate the game would buy it because of the inability to pirate it.
Something tells me that even if it was working correctly you'd still be complaining about it. Why is it necessary that the remove it and not just improve it? Do you have that much of a grudge against DRM, or do you just not want to pay for games?
The only way to implement secure and effective DRM may be through the use of server handshaking. I understand that. But these publishers really need to understand that not everyone has a connection all of the time. Even when customers do have a connection it can be faulty and thus cause them problems.
I'm OK with DRM. Just make it not affect my gameplay.
On Android you can allow change the setting in Applications/Unknown Sources to allow apps not from the Marketplace. After that, just install OTA from any web page serving Android apps. No SDK required.
And Google still allows apps not from its app store. Which is why nobody is bitching.
Apple has complete control over its store. Even though it is not a monopoly by definition, it is still an unsettling issue.
One side of the story is that all computing systems should be open markets. There is nothing stopping someone from making controversial applications or websites for PCs and Macs. Yes, if you made a site about making bombs it may be illegal, but for the most part the restrictions reasonable. The controlled computing market is a threat that hurts both developers in what they can produce, and also the software market by funneling all profits to a single source: the controller (Apple).
The other side of the story is that companies have the right to restrict what runs on their products. Nintendo, PlayStation, and Microsoft all control what games can run on their gaming machines. This has already set a precedent that essentially allows Apple to do the same with the iPhone. For the most part this creates a clean market of software for consumers but not necessarily one with quality. Case in point: PlayStation 1, like the iPhone, had a lot of crap apps but also some of the best ones at the time.
Do Nintendo, Microsoft, and PlayStation take cuts from all applications sold on their platforms? Probably although I don't know the answer.
I think the bottom line is that smartphones are full computing platforms these days. And if computing platforms are not open then there is a serious threat to the freedom of information and the use of computers in general around the world. I would half expect laws to come into place to prevent discrimination of applications and information on all devices with the computing power.
There is nothing wrong with Adobe developing the cross-compiler and Apple's new portion of the agreement is unlawful. The reason is because Adobe is just using public standards.
This is as if Apple said "We support JPEGs on our platform!" expecting everyone to use their JPEG-creating software. Then Adobe comes along and says "We can help you make those JPEGs! But they will look even better! And they'll still follow exactly the same specs and standards as regular JPEGs!" Then Apple's like "Oh, but you can't use JPEGs created by Adobe's software." If Apple wants to investigate every single JPEG and make sure it isn't made with Adobe's software, they certainly can. And they can reject as many JPEGs as they want.
The problem is that these are public standards. You can make C/C++ source files with one app and compile them in another. There is nothing Apple can do to stop you.
I call scare crow. The clause in the agreement is ridiculous and nigh unenforceable anyway.
Furthermore, this is akin to if Apple decided to block certain websites from its customers. You can be sure that they'd get a ripping in court if they tried that.
Isn't Apple being a hypocrite here? Apple allows apps written in C/C++ but those, when designed correctly, can be ported to/from another supporting platform (ie: Android) in a matter of days. Furthermore Apple has a web browser and has been touting support for web apps and HTML5, yet the web is a definition of cross-platform content. There are plenty of tools and frameworks in web development (ie: Dreamweaver) that allow you to make websites easily. Apple allows those websites.
It seems it comes down to a screw Adobe move.
This isn't *quite* as bad as Palm lying about their USB id's in order to piggy-back on Apple's success, but it's pretty darn close.
So Adobe porting Flash to iPhone using allowed APIs is just as bad as using a software hack to add support for your devices. I don't know what you're smoking, but...
If Adobe want to play, they need to bring something that excites the user-base
"Cross-platform". The web is cross platform and Apple still supports that. But not Flash?
I think we all agree that it would be silly for Apple to allow the iPhone to become dependent on Flash, then have to make changes, or even pay a ransom, to Adobe in order to keep adobe from sabotaging the platform.
What are you talking about? For one, why would Apple's platform become dependent of Flash? Flash is a niche platform on the web and has been for some time until the web went video crazy. That's right, the web. Not the app store, the web. It is naive to think that Flash apps converted to iPhone would tump iPhone-specific apps in the first place.
Second, why would Adobe sabotage Apple? Adobe has generally kept pretty neutral. If anything, Apple is sabotaging openness.
Again, not defending the license agreement, just refuting silly statements.
... Just read what you said.
Third person view is implemented in vehicle games so you can see the extent of your car/plane/F-zero and not hit stuff. You could make a game where there was no third-person view, and you were forced to learn through practice with your full view inside the vehicle. But this would be hard to implement and not as fun.
While this does mean that the mechanics are going to be a bit different from "real" racing, it doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned. There's going to be a learning curve to anything you have to control, virtual or real. As long as the physics are not generous like an arcade racer, I'd say it would still give racers a leg up.
Religion often reflects our fundamental questions about us, the world, and the universe. Scientists attempting to explain what happens after we die seems like a great candidate to me. It's also a question that religions around the world have attempted to answer. Coincidentally, a lot of them have answered this question in much the same way: afterlife.
Now maybe trying to explain Moses' parting the sea is akin to explaining a stunt in a Terminator movie, but that's not one of the great questions now is it?
The things teens mostly do on computers these days is chatting, listening to music, and browsing the web. All at the same time. This is trivial. No I'm no teenager, but until the iPad can do this, why would I want one?
Seems to me like it's 2 worlds with 3 dimensions. Like Legacy of Kain.
Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.
Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple? Promoting a successful (and free to the consumer) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.
Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.
Why? If it weren't for applets and Flash, innovation on the Internet would be stale. The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind. There would be no Penny Arcade, no Youtube, no Hulu, no Facebook apps. The only reason open technologies are approaching (barely) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.
Don't you know how this usually works? Companies see a chance for profit, develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years. Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity, upon which the open source version might be successful. In fact, it's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML, CSS, and the like.
I don't see this as a bad thing. But honestly, why is Google doing this? I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download, install Flash, and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.
I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone. Google has stakes in Flash, such as their charts on Google Finance. Google also may have done this in response to Apple's new plans for advertising. And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content. If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process, Google may loose one of its huge cash cows. In the end, Google doesn't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies.
How is targeting 2 or 3 consoles (Wii is usually left out of the loop for games worth mentioning) more difficult than targeting enormous different combinations of PC hardware? The amount of testing required for a PC game alone rips apart your argument.
Actually there is a fair bit of market analysis that goes into pricing digital media. It's a balancing act. Obviously raising and raising the price would only cause more piracy.
Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.
It's not necessary for the game seller, Person A in my story, to use the money to buy another game. He bought the first game knowing that he'd be able to sell it. This lowered both his perceived and real cost of the game at the time of his purchase, possibly to a point lower than his perceived utility enabling the original purchase to occur.
You're talking about real cost of the game, I'm talking about the publisher making money off of used game sales. Yes, the real cost to the gamer is reduced when he can sell his game, but the publisher still makes no money, which was point of my post.
I didn't get your example in the previous post when I made the piracy connection, but after your second explanation I see what you are getting at.
Pricing the game to account for the market (used sales, piracy rates, whatever) doesn't mean that the publishers make money from used game sales. It just means that they price the game to account for those used game sales.
Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.
By your logic the publishers make money off of pirates because they raised the price of their game to account for the pirates. (And no, lets not get into whether or not a pirate would pay for it because that's a whole 'nother ball game.)
A better model for publishers would be for users to send their game back to the publisher in exchange for a discount on another game of theirs. This would boost brand loyalty for the customer, provide a more constant revenue stream for the publisher, and also allow for a publisher-centric used game market.
Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?
Yes it is different. For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time. As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine, you're in the clear. But it's an act of pure faith.
The key difference is the one-time use codes. However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines.