Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.
I've got a PC (which, thanks to my job is kept pretty up to date with eng samples from intel, amd and nvidia) and I've got an XBox and PS3, i play games on all of them (probably the ps3 not as much mainly because i prefer the xbox controller) and I don't see any reason why I would abandon the consoles to play on the PC exclusively even though it is a pretty decent PC. They all have their place.
I don't have a Wii because I'm not much into those sorts of games - I have a Kinect and I'm not really a fan of that either - and the same goes for tablets and smartphones, sure these 'Tiny Consoles' replace casual gaming in that sense but outside of casual gaming I see no reason I would restrict myself to just the PC.
but as the hands-on video demonstrates, Canonical has been paying attention
lol paying attention to what?
All the failed/failing device manufacturers and OSes, Ubuntu Phone looks like a mashup of WebOS, MeeGo and BB10 features. What it lacks is the same thing all of those lacked, in fact Windows Phone has the same problem, it's not that the OS is bad or anything like that, it's that this late in the game you can't just be as good as the established competition, you have to be better and better in a way that the general populace (who have already adopted one of the dominant platforms) cares about enough to switch from what they already have and know.
Because games take up a lot of space, for example Max Payne3 is something in the order of 30GB, even with a 256GB SSD you're going to fill it up pretty quickly.
At least with consoles you don't have to worry about updating drivers and get into the settings of each game and tweak things to get it running well, not to mention having to deal with Windows. I can see how that appeals to people who like fiddling with that stuff though.
Well, consider this - the App Store is the ONLY market for iPhone software so those numbers are for all software sales for iPhone. That $7B figure that is tossed around is not for 2012, but since the App Store was created.
And the averages work out to - assuming all apps were paid apps (which they certainly aren't) - around $9000 per app.
Electronic Arts alone is making $4B a year in revenue.
So? I'm sure some of that comes from iOS as well as from Android, PC, PS, XBox and Wii.
it's a rube's game to develop for iPhone. It's certainly not something you can design a major company around.
Why would anyone build a company exclusively around iOS apps? Most port to other platforms so the contribution from iOS is only part of their income or do it as a hobby so i'm not sure what your point or complaint is supposed to be. Are you trying to say one shouldn't pin all their hopes on iOS apps? If so i would think that would obvious enough to not even have to state it.
Making the switch to Android is a lot easier, at least from the software upgrade point of view.
Isn't that the case with all platforms? It's nice that switching is easy.
And that statement is downright deceitful considering you need to pay the $99 yearly license fee to get you application listed.
Wrong, it isn't deceitful at all, nowhere near 5 million people have listed applications, in fact there aren't even 20% of that number of applications in the app store today, yet you claim 5 million people have been paying $99 a year for the past 5 years, obviously a ridiculous and baseless claim that isn't in any way even close to being conceivably accurate.
You still need to pay for the Mac to develop on regardless of if you release anything.
Not if you already have one, and you certainly don't need one to become a registered developer. Moreover i doubt many people are buying a mac solely for the purpose of iOS development.
A free developer registration only gives you the right to look, not to touch (as in release an application).
Yes and the numbers speak for themselves, the vast majority have not released any application.
So, $7 billion made from 40 billion downloads equals $1 for every 5.7 downloads. Ouch indeed.
That downloads figure includes all the free apps as well.
If we divide that 7 Billion over the 5 Million registered developer accounts they have made in the entire time that the store has been running (5 years) they've made $1400 each. That's not even enough to pay for the 5x$99 fees and $1500 for the Mac needed to do development.
That would be pretty disingenuous given developer registration is free and that the app store currently has around 775,000 apps, your numbers make no sense. Even if you made the obviously false assumption that every app was paid or supported by iAds it still works out to an average of around $9000 per app.
Here's the very obvious counterargument: If somebody puts a really bad UI out there, nobody will use that program, and the bad UI will die. If they put a kind of bad UI out there, some people will use it, some won't, but either way it's their choice.
And that's the message the free software advocates need to heed, stop complaining about people using Apple products or that Android is evil because of tivoization and create a product that people will actually choose to use. Where's the free desktop OS, smartphone, tablet, media player, game console, set top box, etc... that people actually want to use? It seems every time a new device category comes out and gains popularity the free software community implores people not to use it because it isn't freedom-respecting, yet the alternative either doesn't exist or sucks and people don't want to use it.
I would have to guess that you don't actually work in mobile development, since this is not the case at all. Where I develop, the iOS and Android teams are the same size, and get roughly the same work done. Android is *built* around handling different devices, and has the tools to do it, and if anything it's getting more difficult for iOS because the assumptions they make over screen resolutions are getting less reliable as Apple adds variety in the lineup.
No my point is that if you find emulators are not sufficient (as the person i was discussing this suggested) and you feel you need to get a range of real devices to test then you will need far more Android devices to cover the testing than Apple ones as Android configurations are far more varied.
Also, I don't know why we are suddenly scared of differing devices - in desktop development we've dealt with varied configurations since the dawn of time. If anything, iOS has been a brief exception to the norm.
That's why desktop high performance realtime applications have performance tuning settings, to deal with varied configurations. I sure as hell don't want to be going into the settings of mobile applications turning settings on and off to try and get it to run ok.
If that was true; Nobody would have any objection.
The only people objecting are those who want to use proprietary software but want the freedoms granted by free software, if you want those freedoms then choose free software otherwise you agree to use proprietary software on the terms of the vendor. You can't have it both ways just because you want it like that.
The fact is, however, that if you do copy their software without a license or having lost the evidence of that license then Microsoft definitely do things like sending in the BSA and trying to put you in prison.
Because, like any agreement, if you do something against those terms there are consequences, you can't just break an agreement because you think you should be able to. If you don't like the terms then don't agree to it and don't use the software.
However, at the point that you realise that you need to make copies for a friend, when it's too late and the first decision was already made that's the point where the come in and steal your freedom.
Oh rubbish, nobody is stealing your freedom, it's a freedom you didn't have before and were never granted in any capacity. Maybe all the complainers should work on making decent free software that people actually want to use rather than complaining the proprietary software isn't free.
They aren't 'taking' anything, they just aren't granting you that freedom if you choose to use that software, nothing is taken away. If you choose not to use that software, again nothing is taken away.
This idiotic notion that choosing to use software under restrictive terms is 'taking away freedom' is as moronic as the 'copying is stealing' rubbish from the RIAA/MPAA.
As I understand it, an application is expected to support the non-retina iPhone 3GS, retina iPhone 4/4S, iPhone 5, non-retina iPad 1/2, retina iPad 3/4, and iPad mini. That's six different kinds of screen. If your application's layout is flexible enough for all these, it's probably flexible enough for Android's layout model.
The @2X notation makes it easy for art assets to support retina and non-retina displays. So if you're targeting the iPhone you just need retina and non-retina + potentially iPhone 5 support. If you're writing an iPad app you only need to worry about retina and non-retina and the @2X makes that really easy. It's not difficult to write resolution-independent and size-independent code, but you need to test usability, which on Android is much harder because of the broad range of devices.
Apple still sells its older iPhone 3GS as an entry-level phone. Compare its performance to that of an iPhone 5.
Yes that's easy, the low end is the 3GS, but on Android it's far more complex because there are various low-powered phones supporting many different operating system versions with different GPU, CPU and RAM configurations making performance far more hit-and-miss, which is why you need lots more Android devices to test on than you do iOS ones.
How accurate is this simulation? For example, if something compiles and runs on the development computer, will it run on the target device at roughly the same speed? Otherwise, a developer could end up submitting something that crashes on the device or runs unacceptably slowly on the device.
In that case the cost of Android development is significantly larger given that Android devices span a far greater number of form factors, performance, resolution, screen size, operating system version and various other configurations than do iOS devices.
I want an app that lets me use any computer and keyboard to connect to my phone, and use it as a gateway to the cloud, to hold my personal work, etc.
My first thought would be why don't you develop one then? But the second one would be why not just have a live distro on the internal storage of your phone and boot the 'any computer' into it to do your work? Or chroot to Ubuntu userspace on an Android phone? But for most people an Ultrabook is a much more appropriate method.
Isn't that sad? A state-of-the-art piece of technology is only a clunker because its handicapped.
Not really, your old phones may have once been state of the art, but they certainly aren't now, i doubt you'd find them capable of doing anything useful anyway.
- With Windows, I can install pretty much any application I want.
- With Apple, I am completely at the company's mercy.
Just a quick clarification here:
-with Windows (desktop) you can install pretty much any application you want, with Windows (RT and Phone) you are completely at the company's mercy.
-with Apple OSX (desktop) you can install pretty much any application you want, with Apple iOS (iPad/iPod/iPhone) you are completely at the company's mercy.
Not to mention that Microsoft is restricting the Chrome experience on Win8 Metro by denying access to API's. Exactly the same thing. And disallowing any other apps beyond MSOffice from running in desktop mode on ARM.
How is that any different from Apple and Google giving themselves special rights on their own platforms? Apple has their own private APIs that only they can use on iOS and Google has its own private undocumented APIs too (manifested, for example, with the recent weather API issue). I would say pretty much all companies that aren't 100% open source have private APIs only accessible/usable by them.
Well, but things can be nasty, and "insane ravings" without being libelous. Laws vary state to state, and federally, but generally opinions are not libelous. I can write "I think exomondo is a jerk!" all I want and you'll never win a libel suit against me in the US.
Yeah that's what i'm thinking, it could be him masquerading as 'Sally Smith' or presenting his personal opinion of her or - as you say - a TimeCube-esque rant. But without knowing the content it's hard to advise whether to just suck it up and ignore it or to work to find some way to resolve it. There is always the possibility that it's your other example "exomondo is a jerk because he stole $10,000 from me" but in this case it could be true, who knows, maybe she's done something like that and perhaps even had a change of heart and resolved it but the facts remain. Hard to know without seeing what's been written. Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry bounces a cheque at the bodega and even though he returns to pay for the goods plus an extra 30% for the trouble the store owner keeps the cheque up to show everybody what happened.
I think, however, OP might have a shot at at least getting the URL back, as I know companies have been able to get ICANN to evict cybersquatters using their trademarked names.
I've heard that too but could you really trademark your name and retroactively acquire all domain names associated with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.
I've got a PC (which, thanks to my job is kept pretty up to date with eng samples from intel, amd and nvidia) and I've got an XBox and PS3, i play games on all of them (probably the ps3 not as much mainly because i prefer the xbox controller) and I don't see any reason why I would abandon the consoles to play on the PC exclusively even though it is a pretty decent PC. They all have their place.
I don't have a Wii because I'm not much into those sorts of games - I have a Kinect and I'm not really a fan of that either - and the same goes for tablets and smartphones, sure these 'Tiny Consoles' replace casual gaming in that sense but outside of casual gaming I see no reason I would restrict myself to just the PC.
but as the hands-on video demonstrates, Canonical has been paying attention
lol paying attention to what?
All the failed/failing device manufacturers and OSes, Ubuntu Phone looks like a mashup of WebOS, MeeGo and BB10 features. What it lacks is the same thing all of those lacked, in fact Windows Phone has the same problem, it's not that the OS is bad or anything like that, it's that this late in the game you can't just be as good as the established competition, you have to be better and better in a way that the general populace (who have already adopted one of the dominant platforms) cares about enough to switch from what they already have and know.
I haven't done that at all since windows 7 came out.
You haven't updated your drivers since windows 7 came out?
Who the fuck has to update drivers
Yeah nobody has to update drivers to get things to work, like the issues with modern games like Diablo 3.
or tweak shit to get a modern PC game running.
running well , just look at all the posts on the ubisoft forums about Assassin's Creed 3 running terribly or crashing due to graphics driver issues.
Why so much RAM and still a spinning disk?
Because games take up a lot of space, for example Max Payne3 is something in the order of 30GB, even with a 256GB SSD you're going to fill it up pretty quickly.
At least with consoles you don't have to worry about updating drivers and get into the settings of each game and tweak things to get it running well, not to mention having to deal with Windows. I can see how that appeals to people who like fiddling with that stuff though.
Well, consider this - the App Store is the ONLY market for iPhone software so those numbers are for all software sales for iPhone. That $7B figure that is tossed around is not for 2012, but since the App Store was created.
And the averages work out to - assuming all apps were paid apps (which they certainly aren't) - around $9000 per app.
Electronic Arts alone is making $4B a year in revenue.
So? I'm sure some of that comes from iOS as well as from Android, PC, PS, XBox and Wii.
it's a rube's game to develop for iPhone. It's certainly not something you can design a major company around.
Why would anyone build a company exclusively around iOS apps? Most port to other platforms so the contribution from iOS is only part of their income or do it as a hobby so i'm not sure what your point or complaint is supposed to be. Are you trying to say one shouldn't pin all their hopes on iOS apps? If so i would think that would obvious enough to not even have to state it.
Making the switch to Android is a lot easier, at least from the software upgrade point of view.
Isn't that the case with all platforms? It's nice that switching is easy.
And that statement is downright deceitful considering you need to pay the $99 yearly license fee to get you application listed.
Wrong, it isn't deceitful at all, nowhere near 5 million people have listed applications, in fact there aren't even 20% of that number of applications in the app store today, yet you claim 5 million people have been paying $99 a year for the past 5 years, obviously a ridiculous and baseless claim that isn't in any way even close to being conceivably accurate.
You still need to pay for the Mac to develop on regardless of if you release anything.
Not if you already have one, and you certainly don't need one to become a registered developer. Moreover i doubt many people are buying a mac solely for the purpose of iOS development.
A free developer registration only gives you the right to look, not to touch (as in release an application).
Yes and the numbers speak for themselves, the vast majority have not released any application.
So, $7 billion made from 40 billion downloads equals $1 for every 5.7 downloads. Ouch indeed.
That downloads figure includes all the free apps as well.
If we divide that 7 Billion over the 5 Million registered developer accounts they have made in the entire time that the store has been running (5 years) they've made $1400 each. That's not even enough to pay for the 5x$99 fees and $1500 for the Mac needed to do development.
That would be pretty disingenuous given developer registration is free and that the app store currently has around 775,000 apps, your numbers make no sense. Even if you made the obviously false assumption that every app was paid or supported by iAds it still works out to an average of around $9000 per app.
You can think of it that way if you want. It works right up until you want to leave. Rails guide ... jails trap.
It works fine when i leave too.
Here's the very obvious counterargument: If somebody puts a really bad UI out there, nobody will use that program, and the bad UI will die. If they put a kind of bad UI out there, some people will use it, some won't, but either way it's their choice.
And that's the message the free software advocates need to heed, stop complaining about people using Apple products or that Android is evil because of tivoization and create a product that people will actually choose to use. Where's the free desktop OS, smartphone, tablet, media player, game console, set top box, etc... that people actually want to use? It seems every time a new device category comes out and gains popularity the free software community implores people not to use it because it isn't freedom-respecting, yet the alternative either doesn't exist or sucks and people don't want to use it.
And iPod Touch?
Not to mention non-iAds revenue.
I would have to guess that you don't actually work in mobile development, since this is not the case at all. Where I develop, the iOS and Android teams are the same size, and get roughly the same work done. Android is *built* around handling different devices, and has the tools to do it, and if anything it's getting more difficult for iOS because the assumptions they make over screen resolutions are getting less reliable as Apple adds variety in the lineup.
No my point is that if you find emulators are not sufficient (as the person i was discussing this suggested) and you feel you need to get a range of real devices to test then you will need far more Android devices to cover the testing than Apple ones as Android configurations are far more varied.
Also, I don't know why we are suddenly scared of differing devices - in desktop development we've dealt with varied configurations since the dawn of time. If anything, iOS has been a brief exception to the norm.
That's why desktop high performance realtime applications have performance tuning settings, to deal with varied configurations. I sure as hell don't want to be going into the settings of mobile applications turning settings on and off to try and get it to run ok.
They aren't 'taking' anything, .....
If that was true; Nobody would have any objection.
The only people objecting are those who want to use proprietary software but want the freedoms granted by free software, if you want those freedoms then choose free software otherwise you agree to use proprietary software on the terms of the vendor. You can't have it both ways just because you want it like that.
The fact is, however, that if you do copy their software without a license or having lost the evidence of that license then Microsoft definitely do things like sending in the BSA and trying to put you in prison.
Because, like any agreement, if you do something against those terms there are consequences, you can't just break an agreement because you think you should be able to. If you don't like the terms then don't agree to it and don't use the software.
However, at the point that you realise that you need to make copies for a friend, when it's too late and the first decision was already made that's the point where the come in and steal your freedom.
Oh rubbish, nobody is stealing your freedom, it's a freedom you didn't have before and were never granted in any capacity. Maybe all the complainers should work on making decent free software that people actually want to use rather than complaining the proprietary software isn't free.
By taking away that freedom...
They aren't 'taking' anything, they just aren't granting you that freedom if you choose to use that software, nothing is taken away. If you choose not to use that software, again nothing is taken away.
This idiotic notion that choosing to use software under restrictive terms is 'taking away freedom' is as moronic as the 'copying is stealing' rubbish from the RIAA/MPAA.
As I understand it, an application is expected to support the non-retina iPhone 3GS, retina iPhone 4/4S, iPhone 5, non-retina iPad 1/2, retina iPad 3/4, and iPad mini. That's six different kinds of screen. If your application's layout is flexible enough for all these, it's probably flexible enough for Android's layout model.
The @2X notation makes it easy for art assets to support retina and non-retina displays. So if you're targeting the iPhone you just need retina and non-retina + potentially iPhone 5 support. If you're writing an iPad app you only need to worry about retina and non-retina and the @2X makes that really easy.
It's not difficult to write resolution-independent and size-independent code, but you need to test usability, which on Android is much harder because of the broad range of devices.
Apple still sells its older iPhone 3GS as an entry-level phone. Compare its performance to that of an iPhone 5.
Yes that's easy, the low end is the 3GS, but on Android it's far more complex because there are various low-powered phones supporting many different operating system versions with different GPU, CPU and RAM configurations making performance far more hit-and-miss, which is why you need lots more Android devices to test on than you do iOS ones.
How accurate is this simulation? For example, if something compiles and runs on the development computer, will it run on the target device at roughly the same speed? Otherwise, a developer could end up submitting something that crashes on the device or runs unacceptably slowly on the device.
In that case the cost of Android development is significantly larger given that Android devices span a far greater number of form factors, performance, resolution, screen size, operating system version and various other configurations than do iOS devices.
Out of interest what is the card?
I want an app that lets me use any computer and keyboard to connect to my phone, and use it as a gateway to the cloud, to hold my personal work, etc.
My first thought would be why don't you develop one then? But the second one would be why not just have a live distro on the internal storage of your phone and boot the 'any computer' into it to do your work? Or chroot to Ubuntu userspace on an Android phone?
But for most people an Ultrabook is a much more appropriate method.
Isn't that sad? A state-of-the-art piece of technology is only a clunker because its handicapped.
Not really, your old phones may have once been state of the art, but they certainly aren't now, i doubt you'd find them capable of doing anything useful anyway.
- With Windows, I can install pretty much any application I want. - With Apple, I am completely at the company's mercy.
Just a quick clarification here:
-with Windows (desktop) you can install pretty much any application you want, with Windows (RT and Phone) you are completely at the company's mercy.
-with Apple OSX (desktop) you can install pretty much any application you want, with Apple iOS (iPad/iPod/iPhone) you are completely at the company's mercy.
Not to mention that Microsoft is restricting the Chrome experience on Win8 Metro by denying access to API's. Exactly the same thing. And disallowing any other apps beyond MSOffice from running in desktop mode on ARM.
How is that any different from Apple and Google giving themselves special rights on their own platforms? Apple has their own private APIs that only they can use on iOS and Google has its own private undocumented APIs too (manifested, for example, with the recent weather API issue). I would say pretty much all companies that aren't 100% open source have private APIs only accessible/usable by them.
at the end of it Google has agreed (not even been ordered) to change a few business practices.
Who cares whether they have agreed to do it or been ordered to do it? The result is the same, it gets done.
Well, but things can be nasty, and "insane ravings" without being libelous. Laws vary state to state, and federally, but generally opinions are not libelous. I can write "I think exomondo is a jerk!" all I want and you'll never win a libel suit against me in the US.
Yeah that's what i'm thinking, it could be him masquerading as 'Sally Smith' or presenting his personal opinion of her or - as you say - a TimeCube-esque rant. But without knowing the content it's hard to advise whether to just suck it up and ignore it or to work to find some way to resolve it. There is always the possibility that it's your other example "exomondo is a jerk because he stole $10,000 from me" but in this case it could be true, who knows, maybe she's done something like that and perhaps even had a change of heart and resolved it but the facts remain. Hard to know without seeing what's been written.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry bounces a cheque at the bodega and even though he returns to pay for the goods plus an extra 30% for the trouble the store owner keeps the cheque up to show everybody what happened.
I think, however, OP might have a shot at at least getting the URL back, as I know companies have been able to get ICANN to evict cybersquatters using their trademarked names.
I've heard that too but could you really trademark your name and retroactively acquire all domain names associated with it?