Does having made a Mac version make doing the Linux version any easier? If so, is it all chalked up to going with OpenGL and other standard APIs rather than Microsoft-proprietary ones?
I don't know how common a scenerio I am... [snip]... Why should they make games for Linux? Because if they don't the gamer may eventually get tired of the hassle and then they won't be gamers anymore.
Not that common, I wouldn't think. And are you aware that the gaming industry has revenues greater than the motion picture industry? I'm pretty sure that a few demoralized Linux users aren't worrying them.
My contention is that Linux gamers are already buying the Windows version. Thus making a native Linux version of the game results in no (or very few) additional sales for their trouble. The case for the Macintosh is different. Mac users aren't dual-booting windows, nor do most of them have Windows machines hanging around for the purposes of gaming. Thus if you don't make a Mac port you don't sell to these folks.
I daresay that your average at-home Linux user is a infinitely more likely to have a Windows installation at hand than your average at-home Mac user. You disagree?
1. The fact that your games run better on Linux is irrelevant to my point.
2. "...developers should make sure that their games work on Linux too and they can ride the wave as Linux inevitably becomes more popular. It took Windows gaming years to get where it is today, Linux will catch up." And I don't think so. See the argument above in my first post.
3. the next gen consoles look likely to finally be capable of unseating the PC as the high end gaming platform of choice. First sensible thing you've said. I'm not entirely convinced that it's going to happen in 2005, I'm watching this with keen interest.
If only it were that simple. Even if a game developer decided to use things like OpenGL and standard networking stuff instead of DirectPlay, that does not mean the resulting game will be like some Java program that'll just run anywhere. It helps a lot not to use the proprietary technologies like DirectX, but it by no means the whole issue.
What part of "not going to sell any additional units" do you not get? It doesn't matter how cheaply or quickly a port can be done (and I'd really like to hear an actual game developer chime in on this), if you're not going to sell any additional units then why on earth would you bother? How exactly do you sell that to your shareholders or your executive management? Some feel-good speech about how Linux is really cool isn't going to cut it, I don't think.
If you have a Windows game and you port it to the Mac, the cost of porting it has to be less than 10% of the overall cost (of doing both ports) or it's not worth it, because you will only get 10% of the overall sales from the Mac.
I think there's a problem with your reasoning. I'm not in business management, but it seems to me that the revenue you get from selling your Mac port just has to be less than the cost of developing, supporting and advertising it. If you make more selling it than you spend putting it out there, then it's worth it. There really isn't any other criteria.
Well, there's the opportunity costs of putting your developers on that versus hammering away at the next title and so on, but still. Most game companies farm out the porting job anyway.
The "Apple OS" does have games. the Linux community would cut off it's arm to have the games that the Macintosh has. Obviously it's not the Windows market, but it's lightyears ahead of Linux.
As time progresses and the market matures, we will see a plethora of games on Linux.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think there is enough incentive among game developers to actually make their products run on Linux. The way I figure it is that every Linux user who is also a gamer is dual-booting Windows (or running Windows on another box). Developer makes a Windows game. Linux guy buys it and runs it on Windows. That's one sale. Now what happens if the developer incurs the cost of developing a Linux version? He sells one game to Linux guy who then runs it in Linux and goes "cool!" That's one sale. Where does the developer gain in this scenario?
Contrast this with the Macintosh game market. Developer makes a Windows version and Mac guy doesn't buy it. Developer incurs the cost of making a Mac version, Mac guy buys it. that's one sale - one sale he wouldn't have had before. There's an actual business case to be made for doing a Mac version, as long as the expected sales revenue is going to outpace the development/support costs of the new version. Not so with Linux. Too many Linux gamers are running Windows for them to count as additional sales.
I think the case for one-button mice is a good one. THE real use for the second button is contextual menus. Why do you need a contextual menu? The only good reason is for when the standard function is too far away in the interface to be convenient. The BAD reason is when there IS no way to access that function in the standard interface.
So why is a context-menu function inferior to a standard interface one (presuming that it's not out of reach)? Because context menu items give no visual cue to their existence, other interface items do.
Now, professionals with really huge displays for whom that standard control truly IS often too far away to be convenient should be offered a second mouse button. They need it. Most others don't.
So I've always said: Apple should at least provide a two-button for pro-model machines. I'm fine with one-button models for consumer boxes with the option to "upgrade."
I guess that could happen, but again I ask: what reason is there to run it? I mean, beyond the six people in the universe who want to just look at it and go "cool!" No, I stand by my original post. There's no compelling reasons to run any of those operating systems on modern Mac hardware.
It kind of pisses me off that some idiot modded me down for it, but fuck it, that's how it is.
There's no reason to be running OS 9, no reason to be running LInux (on a Mac) and no reason to be running some aged NT version, either. I think the guy above had it right: this is so Apple can have multiple versions of OS X Server running on an X-Serve for redundancy and uptime. There are no other reasons that seem viable to me.
I think this is a way underrated idea. This may appeal to the kids for whom lego robots isn't doing it. I'm thinking especially girls (though I hesitate to stereotype).
If it worked with iTunes, it could be enough to pull sales from other cheaper players.
Bingo. It's amazing how many nerds in here dismiss the potential popularity of such a device as empty brand name recognition and "pretty packaging." All that stuff has it's place, but c'mon. They have the ONLY store that's making it in the consumer market. Having a device that works with it is crucial.
My understanding was that other players could "integrate" with iTunes all they wanted with one exception: your player will never play stuff bought from the iTunes music store. I could be way wrong on this, but I thought Apple was basically holding the DRM keys on that one and not sharing at all. (To be clear: AAC is a standard format anyone can use, but the specific DRM used in the iTMS-bought AAC files is playable only by iPod.)
AAC -> Audio Cd -> CD Ripper -> MP3 ??? Am I missing something?...
It can and does work just that way, but what you're missing is the fact that you have now compressed the audio twice. The first one, Apple's 128k AAC, really doesn't loose you much at all. It's a decent bitrate for a quality codec like that. But then you burn a standard audio cd. Fine, nothing lost there. Then you rip the audio cd.. If you're ripping with a lossy compression codec like mp3 or ogg or aac, you're losing more quality. Remember, there wasn't much fat to trim off this porkchop to begin with, it having been compressed once by Apple before you bought it.
Does this make a huge difference in the listening experience? Your mileage will vary, I guess. On a good stereo, I suppose it would. Especially if you played it side-by-side, as it were, with a file which hadn't been compressed. But for most folks I expect it's probably still workable.
The key here is that Apple was able to go to the record companies and say "it's no longer a 'perfect digital copy' of your product!" They were into that idea, these guys, worried that putting stuff on the internet resulted in everyone having a "perfectly reproduced copy," in contrast with the days in which we were all dubbing cassette tapes for one another.
Oh I agree with you, it would be better. Hopefully in the future it will be cost-effective. Although the power consumption issue is somewhat helped by using a small memory buffer. You read the next three songs into the buffer memory and then spin down the drive. It only has to spin up for a few seconds to cue up the next few songs. At least that's my understanding.
2. The iPod doesn't use flash memory, it uses a hard drive. And that hard drive can already be written to many times. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. It would be nice to move to a mechanism with no moving parts, but there's no such thing as a 20 gig flash memory card. And even if there was nobody would want to pay for a $5000 iPod. The price per meg cost of flash memory is not very cost effective. Look at all the crappy little $100 players that will only hold a couple of albums because they're flash memory-based. Nobody wants that shit.
Bullshit. Apple didn't "hit" the sweetspot, they simply marketted their product as having hit the sweetspot...
Most competing players adhere to my "sweet spot" rule, even if this one may not. (Anyway, Apple got there first, that could be enough to tip the sales scale in their direction on this one.) It's interesting that your explanation for iPods success over this unit simply descends into a hateful rant against the people who buy them. (I don't think there's a successful marketing strategy there.) I think it far more likely that the most salient explanation is that Apple's player works with the first online music store worth a damn. The iRiver unit lets you put your existing CDs on it and maybe some indie shit you buy from one of the lesser known stores. Don't you think that could be an explanation rather than deriding portable music player owners as contemptuously shallow and pathetic?
First, all the me-too music players seem to forget a few things. Like the fact that sometimes less really is more. It's not about who has the biggest hard drive, or the biggest screen with the most colors. It's not about who has the most features or even the lowest price. It's about hitting the sweet spot with regard to features, battery life, storage capacity, size and price. None - absolutely none - of these would-be iPod Killers has shown that they understand and can execute based on this principle. (And think back: what made the original Palm a success? Sweet spot. It's that simple.)
The other thing that is often forgotten about the iPod's success is the fact that it's achieved damned near jewelry-level fashion accessory status. Put away all the jokes about Apple customers being Gucci-wearing fashion slaves. This technology is finally becoming ubiquitous enough to have to adhere to people's sense of taste and style. Like cell phones. Be glad. You want to make an iPod killer? It's going to have to be something people want to be seen with.
Finally, Apple is in a really enviable position because of their online music store. They were the first ones to implement a DRM scheme that is both tolerable to most purchasers and most copyright holders, as well as providing a first-rate buying experience. The combination of the best portable player and also the best online music store is an almost unbeatable one-two punch. You want an iPod killer? It'll have to interface with a good - no, very good - online music store. One with a proven recipe for success.
Just because Sony or Dell or iRiver or some other company announces yet-another-little-box-with-ear-buds-dangling-from -it doesn't mean we should start doing the job of their marketing department by tossing around the "iPod killer" label. I guess if we keep throwing this crap against the wall something will eventually stick. But you'll get no points for prognostication from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Does having made a Mac version make doing the Linux version any easier? If so, is it all chalked up to going with OpenGL and other standard APIs rather than Microsoft-proprietary ones?
Two titles do not a thriving game environment make.
I don't know how common a scenerio I am ... [snip]... Why should they make games for Linux? Because if they don't the gamer may eventually get tired of the hassle and then they won't be gamers anymore.
Not that common, I wouldn't think. And are you aware that the gaming industry has revenues greater than the motion picture industry? I'm pretty sure that a few demoralized Linux users aren't worrying them.
My contention is that Linux gamers are already buying the Windows version. Thus making a native Linux version of the game results in no (or very few) additional sales for their trouble. The case for the Macintosh is different. Mac users aren't dual-booting windows, nor do most of them have Windows machines hanging around for the purposes of gaming. Thus if you don't make a Mac port you don't sell to these folks.
Interesting paralell. But do you think the Linux world is going to solve the problem the same way Microsoft did? Do please explain.
I daresay that your average at-home Linux user is a infinitely more likely to have a Windows installation at hand than your average at-home Mac user. You disagree?
1. The fact that your games run better on Linux is irrelevant to my point.
2. "...developers should make sure that their games work on Linux too and they can ride the wave as Linux inevitably becomes more popular. It took Windows gaming years to get where it is today, Linux will catch up." And I don't think so. See the argument above in my first post.
3. the next gen consoles look likely to finally be capable of unseating the PC as the high end gaming platform of choice. First sensible thing you've said. I'm not entirely convinced that it's going to happen in 2005, I'm watching this with keen interest.
If only it were that simple. Even if a game developer decided to use things like OpenGL and standard networking stuff instead of DirectPlay, that does not mean the resulting game will be like some Java program that'll just run anywhere. It helps a lot not to use the proprietary technologies like DirectX, but it by no means the whole issue.
What part of "not going to sell any additional units" do you not get? It doesn't matter how cheaply or quickly a port can be done (and I'd really like to hear an actual game developer chime in on this), if you're not going to sell any additional units then why on earth would you bother? How exactly do you sell that to your shareholders or your executive management? Some feel-good speech about how Linux is really cool isn't going to cut it, I don't think.
If you have a Windows game and you port it to the Mac, the cost of porting it has to be less than 10% of the overall cost (of doing both ports) or it's not worth it, because you will only get 10% of the overall sales from the Mac.
I think there's a problem with your reasoning. I'm not in business management, but it seems to me that the revenue you get from selling your Mac port just has to be less than the cost of developing, supporting and advertising it. If you make more selling it than you spend putting it out there, then it's worth it. There really isn't any other criteria.
Well, there's the opportunity costs of putting your developers on that versus hammering away at the next title and so on, but still. Most game companies farm out the porting job anyway.
The "Apple OS" does have games. the Linux community would cut off it's arm to have the games that the Macintosh has. Obviously it's not the Windows market, but it's lightyears ahead of Linux.
As time progresses and the market matures, we will see a plethora of games on Linux.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think there is enough incentive among game developers to actually make their products run on Linux. The way I figure it is that every Linux user who is also a gamer is dual-booting Windows (or running Windows on another box). Developer makes a Windows game. Linux guy buys it and runs it on Windows. That's one sale. Now what happens if the developer incurs the cost of developing a Linux version? He sells one game to Linux guy who then runs it in Linux and goes "cool!" That's one sale. Where does the developer gain in this scenario?
Contrast this with the Macintosh game market. Developer makes a Windows version and Mac guy doesn't buy it. Developer incurs the cost of making a Mac version, Mac guy buys it. that's one sale - one sale he wouldn't have had before. There's an actual business case to be made for doing a Mac version, as long as the expected sales revenue is going to outpace the development/support costs of the new version. Not so with Linux. Too many Linux gamers are running Windows for them to count as additional sales.
I think the case for one-button mice is a good one. THE real use for the second button is contextual menus. Why do you need a contextual menu? The only good reason is for when the standard function is too far away in the interface to be convenient. The BAD reason is when there IS no way to access that function in the standard interface.
So why is a context-menu function inferior to a standard interface one (presuming that it's not out of reach)? Because context menu items give no visual cue to their existence, other interface items do.
Now, professionals with really huge displays for whom that standard control truly IS often too far away to be convenient should be offered a second mouse button. They need it. Most others don't.
So I've always said: Apple should at least provide a two-button for pro-model machines. I'm fine with one-button models for consumer boxes with the option to "upgrade."
I guess that could happen, but again I ask: what reason is there to run it? I mean, beyond the six people in the universe who want to just look at it and go "cool!" No, I stand by my original post. There's no compelling reasons to run any of those operating systems on modern Mac hardware.
It kind of pisses me off that some idiot modded me down for it, but fuck it, that's how it is.
There's no reason to be running OS 9, no reason to be running LInux (on a Mac) and no reason to be running some aged NT version, either. I think the guy above had it right: this is so Apple can have multiple versions of OS X Server running on an X-Serve for redundancy and uptime. There are no other reasons that seem viable to me.
I think this is a way underrated idea. This may appeal to the kids for whom lego robots isn't doing it. I'm thinking especially girls (though I hesitate to stereotype).
If it worked with iTunes, it could be enough to pull sales from other cheaper players.
Bingo. It's amazing how many nerds in here dismiss the potential popularity of such a device as empty brand name recognition and "pretty packaging." All that stuff has it's place, but c'mon. They have the ONLY store that's making it in the consumer market. Having a device that works with it is crucial.
...we've known this all for years. ...isn't this just another Apple-pimping slashvertisement?
No, it's a book describing the new Panther details of all the cool stuff that you 'already know.' Why so defensive?
Greatest? I don't know because I haven't read it. But I intend to. I have a friends copy on my shelf as I speak.
By the way, anyone ever read Maus? It was fantastic. Both volumes.
My understanding was that other players could "integrate" with iTunes all they wanted with one exception: your player will never play stuff bought from the iTunes music store. I could be way wrong on this, but I thought Apple was basically holding the DRM keys on that one and not sharing at all. (To be clear: AAC is a standard format anyone can use, but the specific DRM used in the iTMS-bought AAC files is playable only by iPod.)
Or have I got this wrong?
AAC -> Audio Cd -> CD Ripper -> MP3 ???
Am I missing something?...
It can and does work just that way, but what you're missing is the fact that you have now compressed the audio twice. The first one, Apple's 128k AAC, really doesn't loose you much at all. It's a decent bitrate for a quality codec like that. But then you burn a standard audio cd. Fine, nothing lost there. Then you rip the audio cd.. If you're ripping with a lossy compression codec like mp3 or ogg or aac, you're losing more quality. Remember, there wasn't much fat to trim off this porkchop to begin with, it having been compressed once by Apple before you bought it.
Does this make a huge difference in the listening experience? Your mileage will vary, I guess. On a good stereo, I suppose it would. Especially if you played it side-by-side, as it were, with a file which hadn't been compressed. But for most folks I expect it's probably still workable.
The key here is that Apple was able to go to the record companies and say "it's no longer a 'perfect digital copy' of your product!" They were into that idea, these guys, worried that putting stuff on the internet resulted in everyone having a "perfectly reproduced copy," in contrast with the days in which we were all dubbing cassette tapes for one another.
Oh I agree with you, it would be better. Hopefully in the future it will be cost-effective. Although the power consumption issue is somewhat helped by using a small memory buffer. You read the next three songs into the buffer memory and then spin down the drive. It only has to spin up for a few seconds to cue up the next few songs. At least that's my understanding.
1. Absolutely.
2. The iPod doesn't use flash memory, it uses a hard drive. And that hard drive can already be written to many times. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. It would be nice to move to a mechanism with no moving parts, but there's no such thing as a 20 gig flash memory card. And even if there was nobody would want to pay for a $5000 iPod. The price per meg cost of flash memory is not very cost effective. Look at all the crappy little $100 players that will only hold a couple of albums because they're flash memory-based. Nobody wants that shit.
Bullshit. Apple didn't "hit" the sweetspot, they simply marketted their product as having hit the sweetspot...
Most competing players adhere to my "sweet spot" rule, even if this one may not. (Anyway, Apple got there first, that could be enough to tip the sales scale in their direction on this one.) It's interesting that your explanation for iPods success over this unit simply descends into a hateful rant against the people who buy them. (I don't think there's a successful marketing strategy there.) I think it far more likely that the most salient explanation is that Apple's player works with the first online music store worth a damn. The iRiver unit lets you put your existing CDs on it and maybe some indie shit you buy from one of the lesser known stores. Don't you think that could be an explanation rather than deriding portable music player owners as contemptuously shallow and pathetic?
First, all the me-too music players seem to forget a few things. Like the fact that sometimes less really is more. It's not about who has the biggest hard drive, or the biggest screen with the most colors. It's not about who has the most features or even the lowest price. It's about hitting the sweet spot with regard to features, battery life, storage capacity, size and price. None - absolutely none - of these would-be iPod Killers has shown that they understand and can execute based on this principle. (And think back: what made the original Palm a success? Sweet spot. It's that simple.)
m -it doesn't mean we should start doing the job of their marketing department by tossing around the "iPod killer" label. I guess if we keep throwing this crap against the wall something will eventually stick. But you'll get no points for prognostication from me.
The other thing that is often forgotten about the iPod's success is the fact that it's achieved damned near jewelry-level fashion accessory status. Put away all the jokes about Apple customers being Gucci-wearing fashion slaves. This technology is finally becoming ubiquitous enough to have to adhere to people's sense of taste and style. Like cell phones. Be glad. You want to make an iPod killer? It's going to have to be something people want to be seen with.
Finally, Apple is in a really enviable position because of their online music store. They were the first ones to implement a DRM scheme that is both tolerable to most purchasers and most copyright holders, as well as providing a first-rate buying experience. The combination of the best portable player and also the best online music store is an almost unbeatable one-two punch. You want an iPod killer? It'll have to interface with a good - no, very good - online music store. One with a proven recipe for success.
Just because Sony or Dell or iRiver or some other company announces yet-another-little-box-with-ear-buds-dangling-fro