If you can't install arbitrary applications on your phone by now, I really don't think you have a right to call it a "smart" phone.
The technology is there, the computing horsepower is there, and some phones have had it for a while. There's really no excuse at this point.
Here, here. The reason iphone and apple in general have not had better market penetration is their exclusionary nature.
Is the iPhone really that exclusionary? (Is that a real word? Well, I know what you mean.)
I was under the impression that while you could buy lots of stuff in the iStore, you could also develop your own iPhone apps, and therefore should be able to install arbitrary applications on an iPhone. Is this not true? Because that just might be the dealbreaker for me.
Somewhat offtopic, and forgive me for being ignorant, by why havent tablets caught on? I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it Just Worked(tm). Most of the "tablets" out there are just laptops with flippable screens == too much complexity and too many fragile moving parts.
I'm not all that familiar with tablets and don't own an iPhone yet, but from what I've seen, I get the impression that the iPhone is pretty much a tiny general purpose computer. So what exactly do tablets do that the iPhone doesn't?
I've also figured out the killer accessory for the iPhone: a wireless keyboard of the same size as the iPhone that folds up against it.
Forget the iPhone, it's UI is way too goddamned slow for a mobile device.
Really? That's very good to know. I'm still looking for a good smartphone/mobile computer, and the iPhone is a top candidate, but I do want a snappy UI.
What I'm interested in, is which device does it best, and I think it's pretty damn obvious which the winner is.
I'm trying to find reliable info about that, but I'm still not sure. Considering Apple's reputation for easy userinterfaces and the iPhone's multi-touch, I suspect the iPhone has the superior user interface. But does it really? Aren't there any others with slick multi-touch UIs?
First off, I dislike Microsoft Exchange with a passion (when an employer said they wanted to use it, I told them they would need to hire a full time admin for it because I wouldn't touch it). HOWEVER, the meeting planner of Exchange+Outlook has no equal. I've seen many of the Linux packages touted as replacements. They are crap.
That's exactly why my Open Source Software developing employer uses Outlook. (Together with WinXP and IE (to test whether websites work in it), it's the only MS software we use.) There's plenty of perfectly decent replacements for email (I'd be surprised if most weren't a lot better, because Outlook sucks), but apparently there's no decent substitute for the calender.
And I don't understand why. A good calender program isn't that hard to write, is it? Why is Outlook so superior in this department?
the uberGeek. We should all aspire to be like that guy, he's worth millions but he chooses to give back to the community by paying for FOSS development out of his own pocket.
If there's one multimillionaire I'd want to be, it'd be him. The stuff he's doing with his money is pretty much exactly what I would have done. Only he's probably doing it better. He's a truly genuine Good Guy.
If you buy the 360 or PS3 port, you are still buying into DRM just on another platform. Its a more subtle version of DRM that is harder to spot but it is still very much a system designed protecting their rights instead of yours.
But how broken is that system? Does it wreck your console in some way? Does it stop working when the publisher goes out of business? Can it only be installed a limited number of times?
There are very real ways in which PC DRM reduces the value of the game where console DRM doesn't.
I don't know about computer games, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for my Amazon rating for CD's to be affected by DRM. I basically buy compact discs to feed my iPod. So any disc that won't play in the computer is of little value to me, and deserves a 1-star rating, especially since they don't always mention that it's not technically a compact disc.
Nowadays I think they are technically CDs, but in addition to the regular CD logo, they also have a "Copy Protection" logo. When I see that, I don't buy it. I once encountered a CD that had the logo on the inside. I took it back and got a refund.
That refund wasn't entirely trivial, however:
Me: I can't use this CD. I want my money back. Lady behind the counter: It's open. I can't give you a refund. Me: I can't use it because it's copy protected, and the logo was on the inside, not the outside. Lbtc: But now you opened it, you could have copied it, so I can't give you a refund. Me: I couldn't copy it, because it's copy protected. That's why I want my money back. Lbtc: But you're not allowed to copy it! Me: I just want to play it on my iPod. I have to copy it, otherwise it's useless to me.
If you want to play against anyone else you must have the same patch version.
Stardock effectively disabled the online portion of the game for anyone unable/unwilling to install Impulse.
Why exactly is that a problem? What does Impulse do that's so terrible? Would it have been less bad when it's the game itself that checks for updates, rather than relying on a seperate program for that?
Hmnn... This would kill blizzard's bussiness model of releasing a half-complete game while they finish it and finally release the completed work as an expansion.
I'm no expert on Blizzard games, but I was under the impression they had a strong reputation of finishing a game before shipping it. Unlike about 80% of the industry.
It's not a boycott! This is the problem with geeks - all they think about is joining together and tearing down the problems. Instead of worrying if there are enough OTHER people also not buying the game, just make your own decision without them and move on.
What the hell would that accomplish?
You don't always have to "send a message" when you don't like something. Just don't buy it. Who cares what everyone else is doing?
Everybody who's in the same boat. That's who.
If you're so annoyed by it, just don't listen to the discussion, alright? Make your own quiet boycott. Why are you voicing your opinion when you think people shouldn't do that? Or is it only your opinion that counts?
Yep, there's no money in Open Source. Red Hat and Canonical are figments of the imagination,
Are you saying Red Hat and Canonical have released high quality games? Cool! I wasn't aware of that.
Because, you know, most Open Source companies make money by offering corporate support. My employer gives away a heavy duty CMS for free, and sells my services as expert on that CMS. This works, because our customers are companies and governments willing to fork over tons of money to have their websites built and supported by us.
However, if your customers are teenagers with more time than money, I'm afraid living on support is just not going to work.
Well, Stardock does it in a sense: their game has no copy proptection, but you need some sort of account to get patches. But I'm not convinced that would work quite so well if it was completely open source.
You're not getting what I'm arguing. If Stardock wants to do this instead of DRMing the game itself that's fine. The problem I have is when Stardock is held up as one of the "good guys" in the industry when they are doing the same thing as every other company is doing in a slightly different way.
Are they doing regular checks just to allow you to play an existing game? Are their rootkits messing with your DVD player? Do you need a rotating CD in your drive while playing? How exactly are they doing exactly the same thing as everybody else?
If they were, they would have none of this crap (i.e. the system they had pre-SOASE 1.1/Impulse)
What exactly is the difference between Impulse and SDC? I was actually under the impression that it's the same thing with a new name, so if that's not the case, I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me.
Intentionally or not, their copy protection system seems to be (or have been):
1) Release for retail a game that is buggy or otherwise wanting. Include no copy protection but do provide a serial# for each sold copy. 2) Release patches that are only available online after thorough serial# checking.
Since the retail version of the game is rather unfinished (in effect, it's the demo even if a rather big one) you will generally/want/ to get the patch, which is under copy protection.
Disclaimer: things may have changed since my experience with GalCiv 1.
I don't think the original release of GalCiv1 was terribly buggy, at least compared to many other other games. It could do with some improvement though, and the tuning and new features it received in patches made it well worth purchasing a legal version.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't install arbitrary applications on your phone by now, I really don't think you have a right to call it a "smart" phone.
The technology is there, the computing horsepower is there, and some phones have had it for a while. There's really no excuse at this point.
Here, here. The reason iphone and apple in general have not had better market penetration is their exclusionary nature.
Is the iPhone really that exclusionary? (Is that a real word? Well, I know what you mean.)
I was under the impression that while you could buy lots of stuff in the iStore, you could also develop your own iPhone apps, and therefore should be able to install arbitrary applications on an iPhone. Is this not true? Because that just might be the dealbreaker for me.
Somewhat offtopic, and forgive me for being ignorant, by why havent tablets caught on? I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it Just Worked(tm). Most of the "tablets" out there are just laptops with flippable screens == too much complexity and too many fragile moving parts.
I'm not all that familiar with tablets and don't own an iPhone yet, but from what I've seen, I get the impression that the iPhone is pretty much a tiny general purpose computer. So what exactly do tablets do that the iPhone doesn't?
I've also figured out the killer accessory for the iPhone: a wireless keyboard of the same size as the iPhone that folds up against it.
Forget the iPhone, it's UI is way too goddamned slow for a mobile device.
Really? That's very good to know. I'm still looking for a good smartphone/mobile computer, and the iPhone is a top candidate, but I do want a snappy UI.
Apparently, there are no moderators who watch Family Guy.
Why? Is the joke unfunny if you know Family Guy?
I kinda like the show, but if it kills humour, I might have to avoid it.
What I'm interested in, is which device does it best, and I think it's pretty damn obvious which the winner is.
I'm trying to find reliable info about that, but I'm still not sure. Considering Apple's reputation for easy userinterfaces and the iPhone's multi-touch, I suspect the iPhone has the superior user interface. But does it really? Aren't there any others with slick multi-touch UIs?
First off, I dislike Microsoft Exchange with a passion (when an employer said they wanted to use it, I told them they would need to hire a full time admin for it because I wouldn't touch it). HOWEVER, the meeting planner of Exchange+Outlook has no equal. I've seen many of the Linux packages touted as replacements. They are crap.
That's exactly why my Open Source Software developing employer uses Outlook. (Together with WinXP and IE (to test whether websites work in it), it's the only MS software we use.) There's plenty of perfectly decent replacements for email (I'd be surprised if most weren't a lot better, because Outlook sucks), but apparently there's no decent substitute for the calender.
And I don't understand why. A good calender program isn't that hard to write, is it? Why is Outlook so superior in this department?
the uberGeek. We should all aspire to be like that guy, he's worth millions but he chooses to give back to the community by paying for FOSS development out of his own pocket.
If there's one multimillionaire I'd want to be, it'd be him. The stuff he's doing with his money is pretty much exactly what I would have done. Only he's probably doing it better. He's a truly genuine Good Guy.
If you buy the 360 or PS3 port, you are still buying into DRM just on another platform. Its a more subtle version of DRM that is harder to spot but it is still very much a system designed protecting their rights instead of yours.
But how broken is that system? Does it wreck your console in some way? Does it stop working when the publisher goes out of business? Can it only be installed a limited number of times?
There are very real ways in which PC DRM reduces the value of the game where console DRM doesn't.
No, no, no; you've got it all wrong. It's not your rights that are being managed; it's the company's.
No, your rights are being managed too: they're getting downsized.
I don't know about computer games, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for my Amazon rating for CD's to be affected by DRM. I basically buy compact discs to feed my iPod. So any disc that won't play in the computer is of little value to me, and deserves a 1-star rating, especially since they don't always mention that it's not technically a compact disc.
Nowadays I think they are technically CDs, but in addition to the regular CD logo, they also have a "Copy Protection" logo. When I see that, I don't buy it. I once encountered a CD that had the logo on the inside. I took it back and got a refund.
That refund wasn't entirely trivial, however:
Me: I can't use this CD. I want my money back.
Lady behind the counter: It's open. I can't give you a refund.
Me: I can't use it because it's copy protected, and the logo was on the inside, not the outside.
Lbtc: But now you opened it, you could have copied it, so I can't give you a refund.
Me: I couldn't copy it, because it's copy protected. That's why I want my money back.
Lbtc: But you're not allowed to copy it!
Me: I just want to play it on my iPod. I have to copy it, otherwise it's useless to me.
What happens when EA is not around?
Then we celebrate.
If you want to play against anyone else you must have the same patch version.
Stardock effectively disabled the online portion of the game for anyone unable/unwilling to install Impulse.
Why exactly is that a problem? What does Impulse do that's so terrible? Would it have been less bad when it's the game itself that checks for updates, rather than relying on a seperate program for that?
What about the right to play the game under Linux or Mac? Trust me, Game developers hate Linux with a Holy passion.
They don't. However, they do like to make some profit, and aiming for a large market helps.
Hmnn... This would kill blizzard's bussiness model of releasing a half-complete game while they finish it and finally release the completed work as an expansion.
I'm no expert on Blizzard games, but I was under the impression they had a strong reputation of finishing a game before shipping it. Unlike about 80% of the industry.
I agree wholeheartedly. I agree with most points in this "bill of rights", just not with the title.
I'd take it a lot more seriously if they gave it a more reasonable name.
It's not a boycott! This is the problem with geeks - all they think about is joining together and tearing down the problems. Instead of worrying if there are enough OTHER people also not buying the game, just make your own decision without them and move on.
What the hell would that accomplish?
You don't always have to "send a message" when you don't like something. Just don't buy it. Who cares what everyone else is doing?
Everybody who's in the same boat. That's who.
If you're so annoyed by it, just don't listen to the discussion, alright? Make your own quiet boycott. Why are you voicing your opinion when you think people shouldn't do that? Or is it only your opinion that counts?
So why is John Carmack still working on new engines, and releasing them for free at the end-of-life?
Not the end-of-life part. You get 10 year old engines, not state of the art.
And there are some pretty good open source engines. So where are the big blockbuster open source games?
Commercial servers. Look at counterstrike, teamspeak, and many other games/programs.
How will those make money for the developers? If the game is really open source, anyone can start his own commercial server.
Yep, there's no money in Open Source. Red Hat and Canonical are figments of the imagination,
Are you saying Red Hat and Canonical have released high quality games? Cool! I wasn't aware of that.
Because, you know, most Open Source companies make money by offering corporate support. My employer gives away a heavy duty CMS for free, and sells my services as expert on that CMS. This works, because our customers are companies and governments willing to fork over tons of money to have their websites built and supported by us.
However, if your customers are teenagers with more time than money, I'm afraid living on support is just not going to work.
Well, Stardock does it in a sense: their game has no copy proptection, but you need some sort of account to get patches. But I'm not convinced that would work quite so well if it was completely open source.
You're not getting what I'm arguing. If Stardock wants to do this instead of DRMing the game itself that's fine. The problem I have is when Stardock is held up as one of the "good guys" in the industry when they are doing the same thing as every other company is doing in a slightly different way.
Are they doing regular checks just to allow you to play an existing game? Are their rootkits messing with your DVD player? Do you need a rotating CD in your drive while playing? How exactly are they doing exactly the same thing as everybody else?
If they were, they would have none of this crap (i.e. the system they had pre-SOASE 1.1/Impulse)
What exactly is the difference between Impulse and SDC? I was actually under the impression that it's the same thing with a new name, so if that's not the case, I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me.
Not locking your customers into proprietary software just to update their game.
Oh wait.
Wait, where do those updates come from? Are you saying te updates themselves are not proprietary?
Because if you want proprietary updates for proprietary software, just what exactly is the problem here?
"#9 Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play."
I don't want to EVER have to connect to the Internet to play a game after I buy it.
For download services (like Steam and Impulse), multiplayer games, MMOGs and downloading patches, this might not be a very realistic demand.
But as long as you stay away from all of that, sure.
JKL, or IJKL for more sinister players.
HJKL, ofcourse.
Are there herbivorous zombie ponies?
They only eat the brains of sentient mutant broccoli.
Oddly enough Brad Wardell of Stardock was a keen TA player. When Cavedog had the Galactic War running I was in the same Clan. He was Frogboy.
No idea what TA is, but Brad goes by the name of Frogboy of various forums. Or at least he did a few years ago.
Intentionally or not, their copy protection system seems to be (or have been):
1) Release for retail a game that is buggy or otherwise wanting. Include no copy protection but do provide a serial# for each sold copy.
2) Release patches that are only available online after thorough serial# checking.
Since the retail version of the game is rather unfinished (in effect, it's the demo even if a rather big one) you will generally /want/ to get the patch, which is under copy protection.
Disclaimer: things may have changed since my experience with GalCiv 1.
I don't think the original release of GalCiv1 was terribly buggy, at least compared to many other other games. It could do with some improvement though, and the tuning and new features it received in patches made it well worth purchasing a legal version.