"Professional" mobile games (i.e. by commercial dev companies) are almost universally written in straight C/C++ with minimal ObjectiveC / Dalvik wrappers to get to the phone hardware.
And these "professional" developers (i.e. commercial dev companies) you speak of will have access to native code development the same way they do on the XBox as outlined in the Partner Application Development Policy.
I don't see much code being reused on quality apps, but it should lead to lots of mediocre games. Each game will work best on the platform targeted by the developer, and the quality of the ported versions will vary widely, but online tutorials are unlikely to have a positive effect.
Why? Angry Birds (which is available on the desktop and on touchscreen smartphones) simply has the most basic interaction changed to work with a mouse instead of touch, other than that the functionality is the same. If this were porting between WP7, XBox and Windows then very little code would need to be changed.
Any well-designed game is going to benefit from having the physical-platform-agnostic code (i.e. AI, animation, game logic, etc...) not having to be changed at all when you go between platforms.
You may disagree with me about the link between effeminate behavior and gay men,
That's a stereotype, and you are the only one here that is perpetuating that stereotype, no-one else here said anything about gay people nor implied anything about gay people. If you are creating a link between gay people and effeminate behavior (which you are, and incidentally you are the only one doing it) then you are the one perpetuating a stereotype.
The truth is that people's usage of such banter forms a constant attack to the self-esteem of anyone who is different from the traditional mould. You can brush it off and label it as just a random guy's interpretation, but you don't know how it feels until you are on the other side.
No-one is attacking effeminate behavior, simply pointing out that it is the opposite of the traditional idea of 'manly' in the context of the comment 'man up', which of course it is.
You may not mention gay people -- but the implication is there all around.
I didn't imply anything. And in defense of those who actually did write things regarding effeminate behavior, just because someone isn't the traditional definition of 'manly' doesn't make them gay and nor does the suggestion that someone doesn't fit that definition imply such a thing.
So what is wrong with feminine behavior of men? Why do you joke about it? Explain me the humor?
In order, here are the answers. Nothing, I didn't and Redundant (given the answer to the previous question).
No-one said there was anything wrong with it, just that it isn't the traditional idea of 'manly' (in the context of the comment 'man up').
So get off your high horse and stop coming to baseless conclusions, you're the one creating a link between gay people and effeminate behavior, no-one else suggested anything of the sort. You've created that link based on your own stereotyping.
Yes, Nokia sells more cellphones than most other cellphone manufacturers COMBINED...however, a large majority of those sales are S40 devices, simple dumbphones that can't do much more than call and receive texts, but have a week plus battery life.
But they do have a huge share of the smartphone market, it all fluctuates pretty quickly but they may still have the biggest share of that market.
It sounds to me like Nokia has no clue what they are going to do. At best, their explanation for the smartphone market has been murky; at worst, they still haven't addressed how they are going to make up the marketshare currently held by 600 million S40 dumbphones. Mostly people who do not want a dataplan or a smartphone. WP7 will not sweep into the low-end and take that market share.
They aren't discontinuing S40, that will continue to be the dumb-phone platform.
So? Open Source isn't defined by the GPL and the GPL means changing your values to suit the GPL's license restrictions, something less restrictive like BSD or MIT allow you to be open but don't force you into accepting the GPL values.
Even with inflation prices should be far far lower by now, by an order of magnitude.
By what logic? Big studios these days are spending more on games with voice actors, motion capture studios, elaborate art design, music and sound yet you think a game like COD - that employs all these - should be sold for $6? Either you don't understand the meaning of the term 'order of magnitude' or you don't understand how much work is put into the big commercial games.
understand that when you buy a console for $300 you effectively are buying a box
Demanding money for a free app so you can use a paid service by a third party is evil.
They aren't demanding money for a free app, they are charging for access to their network (which is quite clearly far more extensive than one single app).
Basically, MS isn't providing enough value to justify charging for it.
How do you figure? Sure PSN is free but that doesn't reduce the value of XBL. I like that PSN is free, but $5 a month for XBL isn't exactly breaking the bank.
Oh... here come the gay jokes... seriously... grow up?
Jest? Sure, but whats with the perpetuation of a stereotype against gay people?
Of course you mean your perpetuation of a stereotype against gay people, no-one mentioned gay people at all, your stereotypical view led you to that conclusion. Grow up you tool.
You're nitpicking his words instead of dealing with his actual point. Being a major open source participant is a large part of Google's image, and that image is a large part of why people use them.
Like who? most of their customers - people who use their search product - likely have no idea nor care what open source is.
I'm sure that you yourself have likely made posts about how Android is better than iOS due to openness vs closedness.
Why would i do that? just because something is open doesn't make it any better.
Really? So the UI and the function is exactly the same across both the iPhone and the iPad?
No, if i'd meant that i would have said that, learn to read.
The iPhone uses popover elements and split view controllers?
No, like i said (but you obviously couldn't comprehend), the main difference is size, therefore a handful of UI elements that weren't practical on the smaller device were adapted to the larger device. Aside from that they are - as i said - essentially the same.
Damn, I guess I just don't know WHAT I'm talking about.
Apple are essentially using the same OS and the same experience on their phone and tablet so the only real difference is the size
Spoken like somebody who has never, ever touched an iPad or an iPhone, much less compared the actual behavior of the UI on those devices.
actually i have an ipad and my wife has an iphone (i ditched my iphone a while ago) which is of course how i know that. so your pathetic attempt at an authorative comment fails.
I didn't say it was, you said that open source support is a big part of why people use google, yet - as i showed you - google's major projects aren't open source.
Google very often supports open specs, open standards and visible APIs, but those aren't of any bias to OSS or proprietary software.
I wonder how the quality of the BB ecosystem will go over time though, sure it's a boon to have access to all the Android apps but will people develop native PlayBook apps knowing that they could just develop an Android one that runs on the PB *and* on Android devices?
Their business model is built around image as much search algorithms. There are plenty of search engines, do no evil and open source support is a big part of why people use google vs all the other evil monsters.
How so? Their biggest products like Google Search, Gmail, Google Docs, SketchUp aren't open source. Their image isn't built around open source at all.
As long as they don't distribute binaries of Android 3.0 to anyone (and these recepients don't request the sources) they are breaking no licenses at all.
Why? where does the license state they need to satisfy that criteria?
Can a creator of code legally delay the fruits of his own creation? Why not?
I think you're confused. Of course they can delay it, but if that code is under GPL (in this case it isn't) then if they distribute the binary they have to distribute the source, they can't release the binary and not the source (or delay the source) though, it's all there in the license. But of course, just to clarify again, the code in question is not under GPL license.
I think this policy came about because the OHA members were complaining they had to compete with the cheap tablets out there.
Exactly: Oh no, they had to COMPETE! The OHA is a cartel, they compete where they want to compete, mainly in securing the most lucrative marketing and subsidy agreements with networks, splitting the rents in the system. In the areas they don't want to compete, they use open source to crush the competition, plain and simple.
I wouldn't be taking that as gospel - particularly with no basis - given that it stands to reason that Google wouldn't want to tarnish their name and reputation by having 'with Google' on sub-par devices. Which is an entirely logical and business-conscious reason for such a decision.
I thought Android was supposed to be flexible? is this not the case?
Clearly it is, they have been able to build different experience for a different device on that one OS.
I thought Android was resolution independent, is this also not the case?
Really are you just trolling or do you know nothing about the market? Have you seen how many android phones with different resolutions there are?
if it's not and the UI API aren't up to snuff, then what's the change between 2.3 and 3.0 that's so different at the kernel and API level?
No, the difference is that Google are taking a different approach to Apple. Apple are essentially using the same OS and the same experience on their phone and tablet so the only real difference is the size, Google are looking at the phone and tablet as separate experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
"Professional" mobile games (i.e. by commercial dev companies) are almost universally written in straight C/C++ with minimal ObjectiveC / Dalvik wrappers to get to the phone hardware.
And these "professional" developers (i.e. commercial dev companies) you speak of will have access to native code development the same way they do on the XBox as outlined in the Partner Application Development Policy.
Windows = Keyboard + Mouse
XBox = Controller
WP7 = Touchscreen
I don't see much code being reused on quality apps, but it should lead to lots of mediocre games. Each game will work best on the platform targeted by the developer, and the quality of the ported versions will vary widely, but online tutorials are unlikely to have a positive effect.
Why? Angry Birds (which is available on the desktop and on touchscreen smartphones) simply has the most basic interaction changed to work with a mouse instead of touch, other than that the functionality is the same. If this were porting between WP7, XBox and Windows then very little code would need to be changed.
Any well-designed game is going to benefit from having the physical-platform-agnostic code (i.e. AI, animation, game logic, etc...) not having to be changed at all when you go between platforms.
Once it's got past this stage there is also a chance that Microsoft will veto against your game going on the platform.
This sounds different but similar to Apple's review process. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I wonder if the process is more open though or whether it's just as arbitrary as apple's.
... the easy portability of code between WP7 and Xbox,
How come i get the feeling they have NEVER programmed at all?
I don't know, it doesn't make much sense for you to get that feeling based on the passage you quoted.
You may disagree with me about the link between effeminate behavior and gay men,
That's a stereotype, and you are the only one here that is perpetuating that stereotype, no-one else here said anything about gay people nor implied anything about gay people. If you are creating a link between gay people and effeminate behavior (which you are, and incidentally you are the only one doing it) then you are the one perpetuating a stereotype.
The truth is that people's usage of such banter forms a constant attack to the self-esteem of anyone who is different from the traditional mould. You can brush it off and label it as just a random guy's interpretation, but you don't know how it feels until you are on the other side.
No-one is attacking effeminate behavior, simply pointing out that it is the opposite of the traditional idea of 'manly' in the context of the comment 'man up', which of course it is.
You may not mention gay people -- but the implication is there all around.
I didn't imply anything. And in defense of those who actually did write things regarding effeminate behavior, just because someone isn't the traditional definition of 'manly' doesn't make them gay and nor does the suggestion that someone doesn't fit that definition imply such a thing.
So what is wrong with feminine behavior of men? Why do you joke about it? Explain me the humor?
In order, here are the answers. Nothing, I didn't and Redundant (given the answer to the previous question).
No-one said there was anything wrong with it, just that it isn't the traditional idea of 'manly' (in the context of the comment 'man up').
So get off your high horse and stop coming to baseless conclusions, you're the one creating a link between gay people and effeminate behavior, no-one else suggested anything of the sort. You've created that link based on your own stereotyping.
Yes, Nokia sells more cellphones than most other cellphone manufacturers COMBINED...however, a large majority of those sales are S40 devices, simple dumbphones that can't do much more than call and receive texts, but have a week plus battery life.
But they do have a huge share of the smartphone market, it all fluctuates pretty quickly but they may still have the biggest share of that market.
It sounds to me like Nokia has no clue what they are going to do. At best, their explanation for the smartphone market has been murky; at worst, they still haven't addressed how they are going to make up the marketshare currently held by 600 million S40 dumbphones. Mostly people who do not want a dataplan or a smartphone. WP7 will not sweep into the low-end and take that market share.
They aren't discontinuing S40, that will continue to be the dumb-phone platform.
And MS-PL is not compatible with the GPL.
So? Open Source isn't defined by the GPL and the GPL means changing your values to suit the GPL's license restrictions, something less restrictive like BSD or MIT allow you to be open but don't force you into accepting the GPL values.
Even with inflation prices should be far far lower by now, by an order of magnitude.
By what logic? Big studios these days are spending more on games with voice actors, motion capture studios, elaborate art design, music and sound yet you think a game like COD - that employs all these - should be sold for $6? Either you don't understand the meaning of the term 'order of magnitude' or you don't understand how much work is put into the big commercial games.
understand that when you buy a console for $300 you effectively are buying a box
how is a console is 'effectively a box'?
Demanding money for a free app so you can use a paid service by a third party is evil.
They aren't demanding money for a free app, they are charging for access to their network (which is quite clearly far more extensive than one single app).
Basically, MS isn't providing enough value to justify charging for it.
How do you figure? Sure PSN is free but that doesn't reduce the value of XBL. I like that PSN is free, but $5 a month for XBL isn't exactly breaking the bank.
Oh... here come the gay jokes... seriously... grow up?
Jest? Sure, but whats with the perpetuation of a stereotype against gay people?
Of course you mean your perpetuation of a stereotype against gay people, no-one mentioned gay people at all, your stereotypical view led you to that conclusion. Grow up you tool.
We call that a dupe.
quick! he's not using the terminology i use, tell him he must be new!
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/26/0129207/Samsungs-Happy-Galaxy-Tab-Users-Are-Actors
If you can't innovate, litigate.
What's this got to do with innovation?
You're nitpicking his words instead of dealing with his actual point. Being a major open source participant is a large part of Google's image, and that image is a large part of why people use them.
Like who? most of their customers - people who use their search product - likely have no idea nor care what open source is.
I'm sure that you yourself have likely made posts about how Android is better than iOS due to openness vs closedness.
Why would i do that? just because something is open doesn't make it any better.
Really? So the UI and the function is exactly the same across both the iPhone and the iPad?
No, if i'd meant that i would have said that, learn to read.
The iPhone uses popover elements and split view controllers?
No, like i said (but you obviously couldn't comprehend), the main difference is size, therefore a handful of UI elements that weren't practical on the smaller device were adapted to the larger device. Aside from that they are - as i said - essentially the same.
Damn, I guess I just don't know WHAT I'm talking about.
Correct.
Spoken like somebody who has never, ever touched an iPad or an iPhone, much less compared the actual behavior of the UI on those devices.
actually i have an ipad and my wife has an iphone (i ditched my iphone a while ago) which is of course how i know that. so your pathetic attempt at an authorative comment fails.
products != image
I didn't say it was, you said that open source support is a big part of why people use google, yet - as i showed you - google's major projects aren't open source.
Google very often supports open specs, open standards and visible APIs, but those aren't of any bias to OSS or proprietary software.
from the GPL 2 under terms and conditions for copying, distribution, and modification
which would be relevant if android were licensed under the GPLv2, which of course it isn't.
I wonder how the quality of the BB ecosystem will go over time though, sure it's a boon to have access to all the Android apps but will people develop native PlayBook apps knowing that they could just develop an Android one that runs on the PB *and* on Android devices?
Their business model is built around image as much search algorithms. There are plenty of search engines, do no evil and open source support is a big part of why people use google vs all the other evil monsters.
How so? Their biggest products like Google Search, Gmail, Google Docs, SketchUp aren't open source. Their image isn't built around open source at all.
As long as they don't distribute binaries of Android 3.0 to anyone (and these recepients don't request the sources) they are breaking no licenses at all.
Why? where does the license state they need to satisfy that criteria?
Can a creator of code legally delay the fruits of his own creation? Why not?
I think you're confused. Of course they can delay it, but if that code is under GPL (in this case it isn't) then if they distribute the binary they have to distribute the source, they can't release the binary and not the source (or delay the source) though, it's all there in the license. But of course, just to clarify again, the code in question is not under GPL license.
Exactly: Oh no, they had to COMPETE! The OHA is a cartel, they compete where they want to compete, mainly in securing the most lucrative marketing and subsidy agreements with networks, splitting the rents in the system. In the areas they don't want to compete, they use open source to crush the competition, plain and simple.
I wouldn't be taking that as gospel - particularly with no basis - given that it stands to reason that Google wouldn't want to tarnish their name and reputation by having 'with Google' on sub-par devices. Which is an entirely logical and business-conscious reason for such a decision.
I thought Android was supposed to be flexible? is this not the case?
Clearly it is, they have been able to build different experience for a different device on that one OS.
I thought Android was resolution independent, is this also not the case?
Really are you just trolling or do you know nothing about the market? Have you seen how many android phones with different resolutions there are?
if it's not and the UI API aren't up to snuff, then what's the change between 2.3 and 3.0 that's so different at the kernel and API level?
No, the difference is that Google are taking a different approach to Apple. Apple are essentially using the same OS and the same experience on their phone and tablet so the only real difference is the size, Google are looking at the phone and tablet as separate experiences.