I thought I was pretty up-front about where those came from, and I don't think I presented it as my own, comprehensive research into the market intricacies of mobile platforms.
But if you wanted my search terms, I think it was something like, "piracy ios vs android" or "developer ios vs android". Going a little further for those who don't want to look...
Of course there are another 8 gazillion results for each of these. I said only what I saw.
That aside, many of these are topics we've covered extensively here on Slashdot. If you think it's all FUD, you're obviously welcome to discuss and I'll be interested to see it. I have no real vested interest in the results besides being a user.
I've owned both, and a quick google search looks to overwhelmingly confirm my suspicions. iOS sales outnumber Android sales 9:1. Android apps on both platforms are pirated 2,300% more often for the Android version vs the iOS version. Meanwhile, Android users (by percentage) are consistently years behind on system software, so there's little reason to expect any of this to change soon.
Of course, the list goes on. Let's not make stupid excuses for a bad market experience just because, as users, we like Android better.
And maybe you do graduate the cost based on developer size. Charge EA $200,000, charge indie groups $1,000. Make it a percentage of total game revenue or something.
I like that idea. Perhaps tempered with a hockey-stick curve for the little guys. $1k for your first two (or whatever, I'm being a bit arbitrary) then start ramping up sharply to make it seriously cost prohibitive?
But maybe the jump from one to two patches shouldn't be in the tens of thousands. I know I'd think twice about doing business on their platform if I were an indie game maker (I am not). The re-issue was to address something that affects less than 1% of users... so now those few paying customers are getting screwed.
Honestly, I think both parties are being goofy in different ways here.
I don't like the idea of games being released "broken" with intentions of fixing it after release, but artificially making it extremely expensive or impossible to patch something is a double-edged sword.
I can't remember a game in the last ten years that didn't have something wrong with it (arguably, a near-impossibility with modern game complexity), and timely, free fixes have been welcome for that.
So maybe something more suited to, "if you had to release a gajillion patches to make your crap functional, you dropped the ball and need to pay for our time" instead of, "first one is free, after that it's a five digit bill".
Well sure, those kinds of things have happened... though I'd be surprised if 2.4m people worth of paper records were lifted all at once. I'm not-so-surprised with electronic records on a thumb drive. That can fall out of your pocket in the parking lot.
It sounds more like he's blaming them for charging tens of thousands of dollars to certify and post the corrected patch.
The second article makes a good point though (and some stupid ones). He's floating on over a million dollars in sales. The crazy-high cost of certification is extortion, but it's also fair to say he has a certain obligation to the folks who bought his game. Meanwhile, the nasty little outbursts aren't going to win him a ton of fans.
You're right, it is different, and I kinda like that. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
I'm just not going to draw a line from a few lost Facebook users to some kind of Google+ migration... almost precisely for the reasons you mention. I got the feeling that's where the article submission was headed.
Wow. I'd swear just saw a slashdotter correct an earlier post and apologize for a misunderstanding, like a normal person. Also, I think pigs just flew past my office!;)
I have to agree. I like it fine, but it's not a full-on Facebook replacement, and I'm not much interested in unique visitors as a useful metric when 800 trillion people already have google accounts. Show me big numbers for user engagement. Then I'll gladly accept that people are actually using it as a Facebook replacement.
Yeah Lockheed is what everyone knows the name from, but it's been used elsewhere for a long time since. Their Skunk Works (tm) still exists and they've made attempts to protect the name and logo.
I'm sure you're right. If enough customers cared, the carriers and manufacturers would care.
And I'm nobody important so my opinion isn't really worth anything, but as both an amateur developer and even just as a user I get a little cranky about all the new (and new-ish) phones not getting new software.
I'd like to have things like Google Now, the offline voice stuff, etc. I can get a lot of that stuff on my phone in one way or another, but you can't help but think to yourself, "Apple users don't have this problem". It has something of a second-class stigma about it. That stings a little when your phone cost you more than an iPhone.
Of course the catch there is that not all Apple devices get all the new features when they get updated. And you can root most Android devices and install CM if you want the good stuff. Or if you have no other constraints (business or otherwise) you can buy the reference model and it's not really an issue.
But let's be honest... Apple's total control, for whatever problems it comes with, does do the update thing better.
I'm risking getting a little trollish myself, but I was just joking about this particular issue in an earlier story.
Aside from the reference models, very slow roll-outs and platform fragmentation in the Android ecosystem is, I think, a real and irritating problem. I think that's fair for us to talk about it, if only because I'd like to see manufacturers and carriers do a better job.
I think what you mentioned about allowing people to create and save too much design is a big deal, and something that would end badly.
I've done more than my share of sites for organizations, and without fail, any time you give end users real command over design you end up with awfulness. This usually ends up being somewhere on the front page as little news updates, where it's a real eyesore.
I think smart people saw that coming and did a good job using something resembling an extensive superset of bbcode.
The site is about information. Photos are great. And more information is great, though I do think a minor barrier to entry is probably a blessing in disguise. A willy-nilly democratization of design, however, seems like a really bad idea.
Also, I don't think the wiki looks bad. It seems reasonably suited to its job as an encyclopedia. Or maybe I'm just used to it.
Or use any of the usual storage services that provide a client to maintain a sync'd mount point, and just secure the contents. Jungledisk will do this for you for Amazon or Rackspace backed storage. Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. can be used with your own encryption mechanism.
For bonus redundancy, sync the local cache to an external USB drive so you don't get caught with your pants down if one of those services botches your remote store.
Posner's suggestion of having different patent terms for different industries is not news, that idea has been circulating for decades, and probably longer. It's something that he's actually endorsing it in public, I guess.
Someone on slashdot recently linked a great TED talk about the general lack of IP protection in the fashion industry, and how it has actually worked out really well for them. Trademarks protect your profit margin, but you can't prevent anyone from making a shoe.
I see software as being somewhat similar. I should be able to make an online store without violating someone's IP, but I shouldn't be able to call it "Amazon".
Slashdot Mirror
They played more than one song it seems. I wasn't there.
http://nofearofthefuture.blogspot.com/2006/12/noriega-playlist.html
Noriega compound, Fallujah siege, Iranian computer systems... weaponizing AC/DC must work. ;)
You didn't cite a single source.
I thought I was pretty up-front about where those came from, and I don't think I presented it as my own, comprehensive research into the market intricacies of mobile platforms.
But if you wanted my search terms, I think it was something like, "piracy ios vs android" or "developer ios vs android". Going a little further for those who don't want to look...
First one was probably: http://www.diasks2.com/post/20172033158/ios-vs-android-a-comparison-for-first-time
or maybe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/jun/10/apple-developer-wwdc-schmidt-android
or maybe
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/05/android-app-sales-piracy-matters-seasons-dont/
There are about a billion more if you care to read them.
Second was probably: http://www.develop-online.net/news/38848/Android-app-pirated-2300-more-than-iOS-edition
Though here's one that says 90% - http://keyeslabs.com/joomla/blogs/i-think-im-becoming-an-android/136-android-the-perfect-piracy-storm
and one that says they had 83%, if you prefer - http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/05/wired-uk-android-game-piracy/
Third was something like: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ios-vs-android-fragmentation-2012-6
or
http://opensignalmaps.com/reports/fragmentation.php
Of course there are another 8 gazillion results for each of these. I said only what I saw.
That aside, many of these are topics we've covered extensively here on Slashdot. If you think it's all FUD, you're obviously welcome to discuss and I'll be interested to see it. I have no real vested interest in the results besides being a user.
I've owned both, and a quick google search looks to overwhelmingly confirm my suspicions. iOS sales outnumber Android sales 9:1. Android apps on both platforms are pirated 2,300% more often for the Android version vs the iOS version. Meanwhile, Android users (by percentage) are consistently years behind on system software, so there's little reason to expect any of this to change soon.
Of course, the list goes on. Let's not make stupid excuses for a bad market experience just because, as users, we like Android better.
And maybe you do graduate the cost based on developer size. Charge EA $200,000, charge indie groups $1,000. Make it a percentage of total game revenue or something.
I like that idea. Perhaps tempered with a hockey-stick curve for the little guys. $1k for your first two (or whatever, I'm being a bit arbitrary) then start ramping up sharply to make it seriously cost prohibitive?
I don't disagree.
But maybe the jump from one to two patches shouldn't be in the tens of thousands. I know I'd think twice about doing business on their platform if I were an indie game maker (I am not). The re-issue was to address something that affects less than 1% of users... so now those few paying customers are getting screwed.
Honestly, I think both parties are being goofy in different ways here.
I don't like the idea of games being released "broken" with intentions of fixing it after release, but artificially making it extremely expensive or impossible to patch something is a double-edged sword.
I can't remember a game in the last ten years that didn't have something wrong with it (arguably, a near-impossibility with modern game complexity), and timely, free fixes have been welcome for that.
So maybe something more suited to, "if you had to release a gajillion patches to make your crap functional, you dropped the ball and need to pay for our time" instead of, "first one is free, after that it's a five digit bill".
There's room for reason in there, somewhere.
Well sure, those kinds of things have happened... though I'd be surprised if 2.4m people worth of paper records were lifted all at once. I'm not-so-surprised with electronic records on a thumb drive. That can fall out of your pocket in the parking lot.
I'm pretty sure he was going after "prefect".
It sounds more like he's blaming them for charging tens of thousands of dollars to certify and post the corrected patch.
The second article makes a good point though (and some stupid ones). He's floating on over a million dollars in sales. The crazy-high cost of certification is extortion, but it's also fair to say he has a certain obligation to the folks who bought his game. Meanwhile, the nasty little outbursts aren't going to win him a ton of fans.
Ok, McD's... let's see the security footage.
You're in the court of public opinion and it ain't lookin' good.
You're right, it is different, and I kinda like that. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
I'm just not going to draw a line from a few lost Facebook users to some kind of Google+ migration... almost precisely for the reasons you mention. I got the feeling that's where the article submission was headed.
Wow. I'd swear just saw a slashdotter correct an earlier post and apologize for a misunderstanding, like a normal person. Also, I think pigs just flew past my office! ;)
The comment versioning with diff was another fun one that appeared out of nowhere.
Now my: "I have to disagree with this, and here's why..." indicates that I had previously said, "God damn, you're a fucking dunce."
Just let me pretend to respect all of my 8 billion "friends", Facebook!
I have to agree. I like it fine, but it's not a full-on Facebook replacement, and I'm not much interested in unique visitors as a useful metric when 800 trillion people already have google accounts. Show me big numbers for user engagement. Then I'll gladly accept that people are actually using it as a Facebook replacement.
Yeah Lockheed is what everyone knows the name from, but it's been used elsewhere for a long time since. Their Skunk Works (tm) still exists and they've made attempts to protect the name and logo.
I've always reserved "skunkworks project" for what I thought were interesting, kinda secret, complicated pursuits.
You know, like the exact opposite of dell slapping ubuntu on a laptop and selling it on their website. ;)
I'm sure you're right. If enough customers cared, the carriers and manufacturers would care.
And I'm nobody important so my opinion isn't really worth anything, but as both an amateur developer and even just as a user I get a little cranky about all the new (and new-ish) phones not getting new software.
I'd like to have things like Google Now, the offline voice stuff, etc. I can get a lot of that stuff on my phone in one way or another, but you can't help but think to yourself, "Apple users don't have this problem". It has something of a second-class stigma about it. That stings a little when your phone cost you more than an iPhone.
Of course the catch there is that not all Apple devices get all the new features when they get updated. And you can root most Android devices and install CM if you want the good stuff. Or if you have no other constraints (business or otherwise) you can buy the reference model and it's not really an issue.
But let's be honest... Apple's total control, for whatever problems it comes with, does do the update thing better.
I'm risking getting a little trollish myself, but I was just joking about this particular issue in an earlier story.
Aside from the reference models, very slow roll-outs and platform fragmentation in the Android ecosystem is, I think, a real and irritating problem. I think that's fair for us to talk about it, if only because I'd like to see manufacturers and carriers do a better job.
Froyo? We'll tell you when Samsung and AT&T get around to releasing it. ;)
I think what you mentioned about allowing people to create and save too much design is a big deal, and something that would end badly.
I've done more than my share of sites for organizations, and without fail, any time you give end users real command over design you end up with awfulness. This usually ends up being somewhere on the front page as little news updates, where it's a real eyesore.
I think smart people saw that coming and did a good job using something resembling an extensive superset of bbcode.
The site is about information. Photos are great. And more information is great, though I do think a minor barrier to entry is probably a blessing in disguise. A willy-nilly democratization of design, however, seems like a really bad idea.
Also, I don't think the wiki looks bad. It seems reasonably suited to its job as an encyclopedia. Or maybe I'm just used to it.
Or use any of the usual storage services that provide a client to maintain a sync'd mount point, and just secure the contents. Jungledisk will do this for you for Amazon or Rackspace backed storage. Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. can be used with your own encryption mechanism.
For bonus redundancy, sync the local cache to an external USB drive so you don't get caught with your pants down if one of those services botches your remote store.
At least this site hashed the users' passwords.
They were also playing with delivery lockers at 7-11's. I'm not sure if they're running with it, or if that's relevant to sales tax.
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/confirmed-amazons-delivery-locker-7eleven/
Posner's suggestion of having different patent terms for different industries is not news, that idea has been circulating for decades, and probably longer. It's something that he's actually endorsing it in public, I guess.
Someone on slashdot recently linked a great TED talk about the general lack of IP protection in the fashion industry, and how it has actually worked out really well for them. Trademarks protect your profit margin, but you can't prevent anyone from making a shoe.
I see software as being somewhat similar. I should be able to make an online store without violating someone's IP, but I shouldn't be able to call it "Amazon".
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html