If anyone cares what pushed me over the edge, it was when I found they now require you have Google Plus to write a review in the play store. A move worthy of Microsoft at its vilest. This is not the only issue by any means though.
As someone who sells a game in google play I appreciated this move. Before, when a customer had a problem with the game, I had absolutely no way of helping the customer. Now at least I can help some of them by contacting them on their google play.
I would really prefer if I could simply reply to reviews and keep it anonymous, many of the problems people have are just misunderstandings or are a checkbox away. Any change that allows me to respond to reviews is very welcome.
Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine
What on earth are you talking about, IE still has 55% of the marketshare how on earth is webkit the dominant rendering engine at 17%-25% ? and how would a 2-3% market share that opera has make any difference?
having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".
There will always be one engine that has the biggest market share, what, you want them to be split evenly? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. And it is very nice if the dominant engine was open source and anybody could use it for their own browser, because that will significantly lower the barrier to entry for making new browsers.
The reason webkit is gaining market share is because it is an excellent piece of software. It is gaining marketshare because it is benefiting people (otherwise people would simply choose something else). What is wrong with this? What would you have them do different? would you like for them to intentionally cripple their engine so that other engines can catch up?
Webkit is only dominant in mobile. Desktop is still heavily dominated by IE. The reason it dominates in mobile is because at the moment it is the best html engine browser makers can get for mobile, and the price is right. You want more competition, sure, all you have to do is come up with a better html engine.
It's the natural end point of any "free" market. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this.
The biggest monopolies are the ones created by government. Consider:
The federal reserve, a private entity, has a monopoly granted by government to print money. They can (and often do) lend it in secret to their shareholders the banks at whatever rate they pick (currently interest free). Free market had already chosen a currency everyone could mine: gold. Government forced people to use this worthless paper and granted the FED the monopoly. The FED abuses this monopoly to protect their shareholder banks and call them "too big to fail", so it just bails them out whenever they are in trouble, so smaller local banks can never compete
The government forces me into the biggest monopoly in retirement plan known to man: The social security. One that we know is unsustainable, and most people would chose something else if there was a choice.
The AMA has a monopoly on medical labor. No one can practice medicine unless the AMA says they can, otherwise the government puts you in jail. So no alternative medicien
The FDA (de)regulates the hell out of medicines, to the point that it is impossible for small labs to get anything approved. And it takes years to get a medicine approved while people suffer or die without access to them.
No one can deliver first class mail within the US except for the USPO. Even a kid in a bike delivering a letter to your mailbox is in violation of federal law.
I could go on and on for how government creates monopolies. Worrying about a html rendering engine, (which is not even the dominant one, and is open source) is silly. You want less monopolies, I got _the_ solution for you: free market.
So it is no surprise that some/many Economists would disagree with Patents. Those same people probably don't disagree with the copyright system. Patents are government enforced monopolies and copyrights are property...that can be replicated at no (very very little) cost.
I agree 100% with your position in patents. However, these Economists are from the federal reserve. A private entity that has been granted a monopoly by government to print money, lend it in secret at whatever rate they want and unilaterally decide how much people should charge for lending money (interest rates). The FED and these economists are the antithesis of free market.
I wish someone would do a C rewrite. People make excuses about the fully manipulable world and such but the reality is that there is nothing going on in minecraft that would make it tax a Pentium 3 without no gpu offloading had it been authored well in a decent language.
Don't get me wrong it's a great game and fun to play. The implementation just leaves a lot to be desired. Buggy as hell too but you can't blame that on the language!
It is not a rewrite, as I have added a lot of things like quests, skill points, colored light, infinite up and down, teleporting, torches you can carry and 88 mobs while avoiding many of minecraft features. I did take inspiration from minecraft just like Notch took inspiration from Infiniminer. My game runs very fast in older machines (about 10x the framerate) and it even works in android and iphone. I wrote it in C# using Unity, you are more than welcome to try the free demo for each platform and chat with the fans in the web site if you need help. Block Story
Wether they can automate the whole thing or not, does not make an iota of difference to me. Heck I would actually prefer if they automate it because it means less human error. What matters to me is the value that this service has. What matters to me is that this service is worth much more to me than the $99/year + 30%. What matters to me is that the alternative: doing it myself, would cost me much more, and it would have much worse sales.
If they could automate all of this and do it at a cost of a couple cents, then I congratulate them, it would be an amazing feat, and they deserve all that profit.
Sorry, compelling was the wrong word, I meant coercing. English is my second language;)
The fee apple charges is really nothing, I got 2 times that amount on day 1. Calling that double dipping is stretching it. It is obviously just a token to make sure people don't open accounts for the heck of it. That if you open an account is because you actually want to release an app.
Besides, they do not deceive you in any way, you know well in advance what the fee is and that they charge 30%. If you decide to do business with them, you know exactly what you have to pay, and it is up to you to decide if the fee + 30% is worth it for you or not. If you say yes, it is because you think their service is worth more than that cost, in which case you have nothing to complaint about. If you say no, then you simply develop for android and go to the competition, in which case what apple charges makes no difference to you, it is not like they have a monopoly.
Getting your app rejected is indeed obnoxious, and can drive your costs up. I would prefer some relaxing on these rules, though I can understand why they do it: They want their customers to have a good impression of their devices, and they want to ensure customers don't feel scammed in their store. So they try to make sure apps have certain quality. I agree some reasons appear to be very arbitrary. It would be a lot better if the rules were crystal clear from the get go.
I am a game developer, and I have my game in apple store, it is called Block Story.
I have my app in the apple store and google play. There is nothing compelling me to use google play for example, I could sell the game from my own web site but I would be crazy to do this. I still voluntarily pay that 30% to have the app in google play and apple store.
Why do I do it? well, you really can't dismiss all the work they do for you (both stores), consider:
* They market your app, putting them in "most recent" list, as well as in the "people who bought this also bought" list of other apps. This marketing alone is well worth the cost.
* They handle international payments. I don't have to worry about the dollar conversion, I get to focus in what I am good at: game development.
* I don't have to deal with PCI compliance, which I would have to do with my own store
* I don't have to deal with refunds, they take care of it.
* I don't have to deal with credit card processing. Huge nightmare
* I don't have to deal with bandwidth. When my free app is downloaded 300K times, this is an issue.
* I don't have to deal with updates. I publish my update, and they take care of notifying users, and installing the updates
Ok, I reread carefully this interview and what he was/was not advocating.
And I stand corrected.
He does not actually advocate mandating free software. He just recommends it for everyone. It is a bit unclear what if anything he would change about copyright.
I don't particularly agree that there is something unethical about proprietary software.
And the distinction between utility and art seems very arbitrary to me (I am a game developer where this is very much a gray area).
But so long he does not try to impose this view on others by using governments, then there is no harm in him expressing this view.
I've also merrily made an exception for gaming systems -- buying a series of consoles and handhelds which are as closed as platforms can be. I wasn't *quite* able to explain why this was OK.
RMS helps:
It is ok because RMS is wrong. I will probably be voted down for this, but here it goes:
In any voluntary exchange, being buying food, cars, software or whatever, the only people that should be able to decide the terms of the exchange are the individuals doing the exchange. If I buy a software that has a "I must wear a chicken suit to use this" license, it is because I determine that the software is more valuable to me than the requirements the license has and the money I pay for it. Therefore, as long as I voluntarily accept the exchange, I am winning, and so is my counter part. In any voluntary exchange, both parties win.
It is unethical to coerce the parties into a transaction they don't want (governments do this all the time), or to restrict the terms of the exchange which does coerce at least one of the parties into agreeing with something he did not want.
The only exception to this would be if the exchange involves harming someone else person or property.
When RMS advocates changing copyright law to force people into only what he calls "free" licenses, He is restricting the freedom of us software developers to distribute our creation in our own terms, coercing us authors into using a license we may not chose otherwise. He is also advocating restricting the freedom of users who might prefer product A with commercial license X over product B with a "free as in RMS" license Y.
If he simply tries to convince people that it is best for them to use "free as in RMS" licenses, then I would have no issue with it, but he here is actually advocating changing copyright law to coerce people into using them.
The reason the distinction between utilitary tools and art seems arbitrary is because it is. And there is all sorts of gray in between.
So let me get this straight. People that drive a hybrid are not paying enough to maintain the roads, therefore it is necessary to come up with this elaborate and costly to enforce tax. Which will also reduce the incentive to get a hybrid.
At the same time, Oregon provides a tax credit for everyone buying a Hybrid, because the government decided that people should have hybrids.
Maybe it is just me, but would it not just be simpler to eliminate the tax credit, tax everyone the same, and let people decide which is the best car for them based on whatever is most important to them, rather than more government distortions?
In today's world bytes can be copied infinite times for free. This is not a bad thing at all, but it means that us game developers have to compete with piracy. It is very hard to convince a customer to pay you for the time you have spent building something, when that customer can get your work for free from hundreds of web sites.
What do people tell the RIAA when they protest about piracy? They tell them that they have an obsolete business model that is going the way of the dinosaur and that they have to adapt to new realities.
Well, guess what, us game developers also have to adapt to this reality too. One way to do it is with in game purchases or subscriptions. My game has been pirated left and right, and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it because I adopted the model you are advocating: sell you a packaged game. My next step can be to add local multiplayer to my game, and continue competing against pirated copies of my game, or adapt, make it an MMO and support development via in app purchase or subscriptions. I have much better chance of survival if I had the steadier revenue stream from in app purchase and subscriptions than by selling a packaged game.
There IS a reason PetVille couldn't exist as a stand alone application: It would probably not be able to generate enough revenue to justify developing it.
Linux is a huge success in mobile. Linux is a huge success in servers (and Ubuntu in particular seems to be doing very well in servers, congratulations).
But Linux on the desktop seems to be going nowhere fast as far as market share is concerned.
In your opinion, what would have to happen in order for Linux to start gaining ground in the desktop?
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
Suppose I own a megaphone and you say something I don't agree with. I therefore decide not to lend you my megaphone. Am I violating your freedom of speech rights?
No, I am under no obligation to help you spread your message. I have the right as owner of the megaphone to decide who I lend it to for whatever reason. You still can spread your message using other means, but you have no right to do it through my means.
This is what is going on here. Google owns an enormous megaphone called youtube. Therefore, if google decides to block the video, they have the right to. The makers of the video retain their freedom of speech because they can publish the video in some other way.
Freedom of speech is a restriction on governments, limiting their ability to prosecute you because of something you say. It in no way compels private entities to use their assets to publish other people's messages.
Before you accuse me of anything: I think the violence is completely unjustified and is wrong. And I do believe the makers of the video have the right to distribute it.
It's interesting how you blame piracy of minecraft PE for loss of sales. It doesn't seem to be hurting the original authors at all.
Really??? Minecraft PE is one of the most pirated games on Android. How do you know this is not hurting them?
For all we know Mojang could be 10x bigger right now and developing 20 other games if it wasn't for piracy.
Only Mojang (and possibly a Judge) can determine if they are being harmed or not by people stealing their software, being that they are the holders of the copyright.
Why would anyone looking for a mobile version of minecraft prefer your knockoff over the original?
Very good question, and I am glad you asked. Here are some of the things we have that Minecraft PE does not:
* Infinite terrain even up and down (Minecraft PE has a tiny world of 256x256, not even desktop Minecraft has up and down)
* Floating islands, like in pandora
* Quests
* Leveling
* Skill points
* Staffs
* Guns
* Crafting (Minecraft PE only has Mattis)
* Moria (A world between earth and hell)
* Forgotten sky (A world up in the sky)
* 87 realistic mobs (Minecraft PE only has about 5 cubic ones)
* Colored lights
* Gear, amulets, like "My Precious" ( a powerful ring) or Flippers to swim faster.
* Torch (light around the player)
* Shields
* We update about every week, MCPE updates about every 3 months.
* Our game works great on ARM6 phones, MCPE requires ARM7
We are about 1 or 2 years ahead of Minecraft PE at this point, and this gap is growing very fast.
Also, notice that the original is not Minecraft as you seem to imply. The original is Infiniminer. Minecraft is "just a rip-off" of Infiniminer. So the same question applies: "Why would anyone looking for a pc version of Infiniminer prefer Minecraft over the original?" The answer is the same as for our game: because it is more fun.
There is no feature that we share with Minecraft that Minecraft didn't copy from Infiniminer, so if you consider our game a rip-off, then you would have to consider Minecraft one too.
I could be on a space tourist trip to Mars if even 10% of those people were prepared to spend 1c on an any Android software whatsoever. You live in cloud cuckoo land.
The expectation is actually quite realistic, given the fact that we have already reached top 20 paid game on amazon (just today, but changes by the hour), and we have not even hit apple store or pc yet.
Most of our customers disagree with your assessment of "shitty app" given the fact that we score 4.4/5 in google play. Go ahead, read the reviews, or god forbid try the free version (not even ads), before jumping to the default conclusion that the app is shitty because I complain about piracy.
Also, pick whatever you consider to be the best app for android, And I will show you 5-10 sites where it is being pirated, so your argument does not hold any water. If anything, the higher the quality of the app, the more popular it is and the more likely it is to show up in pirate sites.
I am an indi developer. I worked for 1 1/2 years to create my game Block Story
I can see my game all over pirate sites, and their download count completely eclipse my sales. I could be working full time on my game by now if only 1/3 of those users legally purchased the game.
Every day I send takedown notices to multiple sites, which are a problem, because I have to disclose where I live in those notices. Not exactly something I enjoy doing, and I waste time doing this instead of developing more. Only to see the app being reposted in a few hours.
Moreover, my game competes to some extent to Minecraft PE, and I have a lot of reviews saying: don't by this, go get Minecraft PE for free instead at . So am having to compete with pirate copies of other games as well as my own game.
So before you say this is not a big deal, try living off of an android app. IT IS A BIG DEAL.
I make heavy use of trigonometry, and a very small part of calculus.
Your question really depends on what you want to do:
* For game development (what you seem to be particularly interested on), calculus is almost irrelevant. You need trigonometry.
* If you work in operations research, then algebra and linear programming are a must.
* If you work on average database backed web applications, just some basic algebra is enough.
* If you work on AI related field, calculus is very important.
There are other fields that are not typically taught in math courses but in CS that are heavily math related. Like performance analysis. This I use a lot, but once again, it really depends on what you work on.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone cares what pushed me over the edge, it was when I found they now require you have Google Plus to write a review in the play store. A move worthy of Microsoft at its vilest. This is not the only issue by any means though.
As someone who sells a game in google play I appreciated this move. Before, when a customer had a problem with the game, I had absolutely no way of helping the customer. Now at least I can help some of them by contacting them on their google play.
I would really prefer if I could simply reply to reviews and keep it anonymous, many of the problems people have are just misunderstandings or are a checkbox away. Any change that allows me to respond to reviews is very welcome.
Opera's shift to WebKit should concern everyone. It's likely a good decision for them, but it consolidates WebKit's position as the dominant rendering engine
What on earth are you talking about, IE still has 55% of the marketshare how on earth is webkit the dominant rendering engine at 17%-25% ? and how would a 2-3% market share that opera has make any difference?
having any dominant engine is bad, as you go from standards directing engines to the dominant engine imposing "standards".
There will always be one engine that has the biggest market share, what, you want them to be split evenly? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. And it is very nice if the dominant engine was open source and anybody could use it for their own browser, because that will significantly lower the barrier to entry for making new browsers.
The reason webkit is gaining market share is because it is an excellent piece of software. It is gaining marketshare because it is benefiting people (otherwise people would simply choose something else). What is wrong with this? What would you have them do different? would you like for them to intentionally cripple their engine so that other engines can catch up?
Webkit is only dominant in mobile. Desktop is still heavily dominated by IE. The reason it dominates in mobile is because at the moment it is the best html engine browser makers can get for mobile, and the price is right. You want more competition, sure, all you have to do is come up with a better html engine.
It's the natural end point of any "free" market. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this.
The biggest monopolies are the ones created by government. Consider:
The federal reserve, a private entity, has a monopoly granted by government to print money. They can (and often do) lend it in secret to their shareholders the banks at whatever rate they pick (currently interest free). Free market had already chosen a currency everyone could mine: gold. Government forced people to use this worthless paper and granted the FED the monopoly. The FED abuses this monopoly to protect their shareholder banks and call them "too big to fail", so it just bails them out whenever they are in trouble, so smaller local banks can never compete
The government forces me into the biggest monopoly in retirement plan known to man: The social security. One that we know is unsustainable, and most people would chose something else if there was a choice.
The AMA has a monopoly on medical labor. No one can practice medicine unless the AMA says they can, otherwise the government puts you in jail. So no alternative medicien
The FDA (de)regulates the hell out of medicines, to the point that it is impossible for small labs to get anything approved. And it takes years to get a medicine approved while people suffer or die without access to them.
No one can deliver first class mail within the US except for the USPO. Even a kid in a bike delivering a letter to your mailbox is in violation of federal law.
I could go on and on for how government creates monopolies. Worrying about a html rendering engine, (which is not even the dominant one, and is open source) is silly. You want less monopolies, I got _the_ solution for you: free market.
So it is no surprise that some/many Economists would disagree with Patents. Those same people probably don't disagree with the copyright system. Patents are government enforced monopolies and copyrights are property...that can be replicated at no (very very little) cost.
I agree 100% with your position in patents. However, these Economists are from the federal reserve. A private entity that has been granted a monopoly by government to print money, lend it in secret at whatever rate they want and unilaterally decide how much people should charge for lending money (interest rates). The FED and these economists are the antithesis of free market.
I wish someone would do a C rewrite. People make excuses about the fully manipulable world and such but the reality is that there is nothing going on in minecraft that would make it tax a Pentium 3 without no gpu offloading had it been authored well in a decent language.
Don't get me wrong it's a great game and fun to play. The implementation just leaves a lot to be desired. Buggy as hell too but you can't blame that on the language!
It is not a rewrite, as I have added a lot of things like quests, skill points, colored light, infinite up and down, teleporting, torches you can carry and 88 mobs while avoiding many of minecraft features. I did take inspiration from minecraft just like Notch took inspiration from Infiniminer. My game runs very fast in older machines (about 10x the framerate) and it even works in android and iphone. I wrote it in C# using Unity, you are more than welcome to try the free demo for each platform and chat with the fans in the web site if you need help. Block Story
Wether they can automate the whole thing or not, does not make an iota of difference to me. Heck I would actually prefer if they automate it because it means less human error. What matters to me is the value that this service has. What matters to me is that this service is worth much more to me than the $99/year + 30%. What matters to me is that the alternative: doing it myself, would cost me much more, and it would have much worse sales.
If they could automate all of this and do it at a cost of a couple cents, then I congratulate them, it would be an amazing feat, and they deserve all that profit.
But as someone else pointed out, it does cost quite a bit of money for apple to do this, http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/23/app-store-1-of-apples-gross-profit/ And they are not even factoring in the labor involved (they manually review apps).
Sorry, compelling was the wrong word, I meant coercing. English is my second language ;)
The fee apple charges is really nothing, I got 2 times that amount on day 1. Calling that double dipping is stretching it. It is obviously just a token to make sure people don't open accounts for the heck of it. That if you open an account is because you actually want to release an app.
Besides, they do not deceive you in any way, you know well in advance what the fee is and that they charge 30%. If you decide to do business with them, you know exactly what you have to pay, and it is up to you to decide if the fee + 30% is worth it for you or not. If you say yes, it is because you think their service is worth more than that cost, in which case you have nothing to complaint about. If you say no, then you simply develop for android and go to the competition, in which case what apple charges makes no difference to you, it is not like they have a monopoly.
Getting your app rejected is indeed obnoxious, and can drive your costs up. I would prefer some relaxing on these rules, though I can understand why they do it: They want their customers to have a good impression of their devices, and they want to ensure customers don't feel scammed in their store. So they try to make sure apps have certain quality. I agree some reasons appear to be very arbitrary. It would be a lot better if the rules were crystal clear from the get go.
I am a game developer, and I have my game in apple store, it is called Block Story.
I have my app in the apple store and google play. There is nothing compelling me to use google play for example, I could sell the game from my own web site but I would be crazy to do this. I still voluntarily pay that 30% to have the app in google play and apple store.
Why do I do it? well, you really can't dismiss all the work they do for you (both stores), consider:
They charge 30%? you know what, they earned it.
Ok, I reread carefully this interview and what he was/was not advocating.
And I stand corrected.
He does not actually advocate mandating free software. He just recommends it for everyone. It is a bit unclear what if anything he would change about copyright.
I don't particularly agree that there is something unethical about proprietary software. And the distinction between utility and art seems very arbitrary to me (I am a game developer where this is very much a gray area). But so long he does not try to impose this view on others by using governments, then there is no harm in him expressing this view.
I've also merrily made an exception for gaming systems -- buying a series of consoles and handhelds which are as closed as platforms can be. I wasn't *quite* able to explain why this was OK.
RMS helps:
It is ok because RMS is wrong. I will probably be voted down for this, but here it goes:
In any voluntary exchange, being buying food, cars, software or whatever, the only people that should be able to decide the terms of the exchange are the individuals doing the exchange. If I buy a software that has a "I must wear a chicken suit to use this" license, it is because I determine that the software is more valuable to me than the requirements the license has and the money I pay for it. Therefore, as long as I voluntarily accept the exchange, I am winning, and so is my counter part. In any voluntary exchange, both parties win.
It is unethical to coerce the parties into a transaction they don't want (governments do this all the time), or to restrict the terms of the exchange which does coerce at least one of the parties into agreeing with something he did not want. The only exception to this would be if the exchange involves harming someone else person or property.
When RMS advocates changing copyright law to force people into only what he calls "free" licenses, He is restricting the freedom of us software developers to distribute our creation in our own terms, coercing us authors into using a license we may not chose otherwise. He is also advocating restricting the freedom of users who might prefer product A with commercial license X over product B with a "free as in RMS" license Y.
If he simply tries to convince people that it is best for them to use "free as in RMS" licenses, then I would have no issue with it, but he here is actually advocating changing copyright law to coerce people into using them.
The reason the distinction between utilitary tools and art seems arbitrary is because it is. And there is all sorts of gray in between.
So let me get this straight. People that drive a hybrid are not paying enough to maintain the roads, therefore it is necessary to come up with this elaborate and costly to enforce tax. Which will also reduce the incentive to get a hybrid.
At the same time, Oregon provides a tax credit for everyone buying a Hybrid, because the government decided that people should have hybrids.
Maybe it is just me, but would it not just be simpler to eliminate the tax credit, tax everyone the same, and let people decide which is the best car for them based on whatever is most important to them, rather than more government distortions?
If NNI went to war, this would be their weapon of choice
There is another side of the coin.
In today's world bytes can be copied infinite times for free. This is not a bad thing at all, but it means that us game developers have to compete with piracy. It is very hard to convince a customer to pay you for the time you have spent building something, when that customer can get your work for free from hundreds of web sites.
What do people tell the RIAA when they protest about piracy? They tell them that they have an obsolete business model that is going the way of the dinosaur and that they have to adapt to new realities.
Well, guess what, us game developers also have to adapt to this reality too. One way to do it is with in game purchases or subscriptions. My game has been pirated left and right, and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it because I adopted the model you are advocating: sell you a packaged game. My next step can be to add local multiplayer to my game, and continue competing against pirated copies of my game, or adapt, make it an MMO and support development via in app purchase or subscriptions. I have much better chance of survival if I had the steadier revenue stream from in app purchase and subscriptions than by selling a packaged game.
There IS a reason PetVille couldn't exist as a stand alone application: It would probably not be able to generate enough revenue to justify developing it.
Linux is a huge success in mobile. Linux is a huge success in servers (and Ubuntu in particular seems to be doing very well in servers, congratulations).
But Linux on the desktop seems to be going nowhere fast as far as market share is concerned.
In your opinion, what would have to happen in order for Linux to start gaining ground in the desktop?
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
Suppose I own a megaphone and you say something I don't agree with. I therefore decide not to lend you my megaphone. Am I violating your freedom of speech rights?
No, I am under no obligation to help you spread your message. I have the right as owner of the megaphone to decide who I lend it to for whatever reason. You still can spread your message using other means, but you have no right to do it through my means.
This is what is going on here. Google owns an enormous megaphone called youtube. Therefore, if google decides to block the video, they have the right to. The makers of the video retain their freedom of speech because they can publish the video in some other way.
Freedom of speech is a restriction on governments, limiting their ability to prosecute you because of something you say. It in no way compels private entities to use their assets to publish other people's messages.
Before you accuse me of anything: I think the violence is completely unjustified and is wrong. And I do believe the makers of the video have the right to distribute it.
I need Mac book pro for working because I am on the go a lot of the time, and a fast one because I compile 20 times a day. Between $2000-$3000
I need Unity 3d professional for iphone and android which is about $4500.
I need an ipad and iphone to test the app in them.
It's interesting how you blame piracy of minecraft PE for loss of sales. It doesn't seem to be hurting the original authors at all.
Really??? Minecraft PE is one of the most pirated games on Android. How do you know this is not hurting them? For all we know Mojang could be 10x bigger right now and developing 20 other games if it wasn't for piracy. Only Mojang (and possibly a Judge) can determine if they are being harmed or not by people stealing their software, being that they are the holders of the copyright.
Why would anyone looking for a mobile version of minecraft prefer your knockoff over the original?
Very good question, and I am glad you asked. Here are some of the things we have that Minecraft PE does not:
We are about 1 or 2 years ahead of Minecraft PE at this point, and this gap is growing very fast.
Also, notice that the original is not Minecraft as you seem to imply. The original is Infiniminer. Minecraft is "just a rip-off" of Infiniminer. So the same question applies: "Why would anyone looking for a pc version of Infiniminer prefer Minecraft over the original?" The answer is the same as for our game: because it is more fun.
There is no feature that we share with Minecraft that Minecraft didn't copy from Infiniminer, so if you consider our game a rip-off, then you would have to consider Minecraft one too.
No. I believe living off of the game is realistic.
I could be on a space tourist trip to Mars if even 10% of those people were prepared to spend 1c on an any Android software whatsoever. You live in cloud cuckoo land.
The expectation is actually quite realistic, given the fact that we have already reached top 20 paid game on amazon (just today, but changes by the hour), and we have not even hit apple store or pc yet.
Most of our customers disagree with your assessment of "shitty app" given the fact that we score 4.4/5 in google play. Go ahead, read the reviews, or god forbid try the free version (not even ads), before jumping to the default conclusion that the app is shitty because I complain about piracy.
Also, pick whatever you consider to be the best app for android, And I will show you 5-10 sites where it is being pirated, so your argument does not hold any water. If anything, the higher the quality of the app, the more popular it is and the more likely it is to show up in pirate sites.
WTF are you talking about? What Apple hate? I have been working for the past month to port to IPhone.
The only reason I did not do it before is that I had to pay out of my pocket around $7000 in hardware and software in order to do it.
I am an indi developer. I worked for 1 1/2 years to create my game Block Story
I can see my game all over pirate sites, and their download count completely eclipse my sales. I could be working full time on my game by now if only 1/3 of those users legally purchased the game.
Every day I send takedown notices to multiple sites, which are a problem, because I have to disclose where I live in those notices. Not exactly something I enjoy doing, and I waste time doing this instead of developing more. Only to see the app being reposted in a few hours.
Moreover, my game competes to some extent to Minecraft PE, and I have a lot of reviews saying: don't by this, go get Minecraft PE for free instead at . So am having to compete with pirate copies of other games as well as my own game.
So before you say this is not a big deal, try living off of an android app. IT IS A BIG DEAL.
Thank you for reporting it. I believe it is fixed now.
I developed a game using Unity3D.
I make heavy use of trigonometry, and a very small part of calculus.
Your question really depends on what you want to do:
There are other fields that are not typically taught in math courses but in CS that are heavily math related. Like performance analysis. This I use a lot, but once again, it really depends on what you work on.