Congressmen are afraid to kill off software patents entirely, and I don't blame them. It could wreak havoc on Silicon Valley and fubar the U.S. economy
How? By making it harder for trolls to get extortion money they don't deserve in the least?
They made something like $12 million on the iOS version. The iOS version sold very well.
As for your comparison, it's absolute shit without context. First, Angry Birds was more than a dollar. Second, how small is smaller? And how often is the app running?
Answer those questions, and you'll be able to figure out which model is better for your specific case.
So when someone gets around to inventing warp drive, their patent should be denied because Star Trek, along with every other sci-fi show, did it first?
I'll be delighted to give it a try, maybe starting with ads
Because it's completely out of line to think that someone pirating the app isn't above blocking the ads. Not to mention that now you've made the experience worse for everyone else.
They make way more on the free ad version than they do on the paid one.
I wouldn't want that, and it probably would ruin the app. Having businesses pay to be listed means that the ones with the biggest ad budgets are going to be near the top of results, not the ones most relevant to my needs.
They make way more on the free ad version than they do on the paid one.
That's not entirely true. They made several metric shittons on the paid version. The difference between the two is that with the iOS version, the revenue is more or less up front, whereas the Android ad revenue is sustaining over time. One isn't necessarily better than the other.
[Angry Birds on Android] was slower and jerky because of loading ads and the ads got in the way of game play.
I didn't notice it being much slower, but I did notice the ads getting in the way of gameplay. I remember a level where an ad was actually blocking the section of the field I needed to see.
That inspired me to install an ad-blocker on my phone, and I never looked back.
Kinda, but not really. There was the article a ways back that said they were anticipating something like a million dollars of ad revenue a month through Android Angry Birds. However, that doesn't mean that it's "more successful" than the iPhone version, as the iPhone version sold a shitton of copies, and grossed something like $12 million dollars. They are two separate kinds of revenue: The iPhone has the immediate, pay for revenue, whereas Android relies on the "long tail" of revenue, for it to build up over time.
and ofter don't install them after realizing that they want to access my contacts, phone status, full internet connection even if there is no apparent reason for them to do that.
Phone status permission is generally so they can tell when you're getting a call, and pause themselves appropriately. The other permissions are kinda weird, but I'm guessing internet connection is so they can download ads or additional content.
It's been a while since I've looked at doing higher end graphics stuff on Android, but doesn't the SDK give you a way to query the device to see if it supports the higher end features like the textures, shading/lighting effects and such?
Good for you. But if you were only interested in the phone, then perhaps you'd be better off with a dumbphone. For many of us, though, we are interested in the apps, and how much money people are making.
As a developer for both, I will say that making an elegant and attractive UI for iOS is exponentially easier than on Android. The Android gui designers suck ass.
Perhaps sales needs a reverse-commission as well. For every sale they get by promising things that just aren't possible, they also have to pay back the commission if the deadline is slipped.
You wouldn't; that'd be stupid. However, there generally is some delay between when you actually invent the thing, when you file the patent, and when the patent is grant. Lawyers need time to write the application, patent clerks need time to review it. 6 years probably wouldn't happen, but one or two might.
On the other hand, some of your researchers might have created something in 2001, but the company didn't think it was worth the time and money to patent it. Then a few years later, the winds of tech start blowing in that direction. So you dust off the logbooks and such, and patent it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really hold up in a patent lawsuit, as it's not an actual implementation of the idea. It's just a rendering. You'd have to show a device actually using it.
No, they really couldn't. It's basically the Prisoner's dilemma. If all agree to stop playing and reform, then things would work out better for everyone. However, because they are run by humans, that won't happen, because if even one company keeps playing, then all are fucked. And if only one stops playing, then that company is royally fucked.
So no, you can't really single out a single "player" for hating.
Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen are afraid to kill off software patents entirely, and I don't blame them. It could wreak havoc on Silicon Valley and fubar the U.S. economy
How? By making it harder for trolls to get extortion money they don't deserve in the least?
They made something like $12 million on the iOS version. The iOS version sold very well.
As for your comparison, it's absolute shit without context. First, Angry Birds was more than a dollar. Second, how small is smaller? And how often is the app running?
Answer those questions, and you'll be able to figure out which model is better for your specific case.
So when someone gets around to inventing warp drive, their patent should be denied because Star Trek, along with every other sci-fi show, did it first?
I'll be delighted to give it a try, maybe starting with ads
Because it's completely out of line to think that someone pirating the app isn't above blocking the ads. Not to mention that now you've made the experience worse for everyone else.
Crap, I pasted the wrong comment. I meant to reply to this:
it's pretty amazing that users (rather than the businesses getting listed) would be willing to pay for something like that.
And while I'm at it, fuck you for insinuating that someone who pays for something that actually helps them out is an idiot.
They make way more on the free ad version than they do on the paid one.
I wouldn't want that, and it probably would ruin the app. Having businesses pay to be listed means that the ones with the biggest ad budgets are going to be near the top of results, not the ones most relevant to my needs.
Except that's a very well known, and very high profile developer and game. It can't really be used as a "standard" case.
They make way more on the free ad version than they do on the paid one.
That's not entirely true. They made several metric shittons on the paid version. The difference between the two is that with the iOS version, the revenue is more or less up front, whereas the Android ad revenue is sustaining over time. One isn't necessarily better than the other.
[Angry Birds on Android] was slower and jerky because of loading ads and the ads got in the way of game play.
I didn't notice it being much slower, but I did notice the ads getting in the way of gameplay. I remember a level where an ad was actually blocking the section of the field I needed to see.
That inspired me to install an ad-blocker on my phone, and I never looked back.
The fact that software piracy is rampant on Android is not FUD.
Kinda, but not really. There was the article a ways back that said they were anticipating something like a million dollars of ad revenue a month through Android Angry Birds. However, that doesn't mean that it's "more successful" than the iPhone version, as the iPhone version sold a shitton of copies, and grossed something like $12 million dollars. They are two separate kinds of revenue: The iPhone has the immediate, pay for revenue, whereas Android relies on the "long tail" of revenue, for it to build up over time.
and ofter don't install them after realizing that they want to access my contacts, phone status, full internet connection even if there is no apparent reason for them to do that.
Phone status permission is generally so they can tell when you're getting a call, and pause themselves appropriately. The other permissions are kinda weird, but I'm guessing internet connection is so they can download ads or additional content.
but in general, you can do everything you would be able to do on a Pentium III 256MB ram 32GB disk laptop.
Wow, soooooooo compelling. And to think for some reason it wasn't a success.
It's been a while since I've looked at doing higher end graphics stuff on Android, but doesn't the SDK give you a way to query the device to see if it supports the higher end features like the textures, shading/lighting effects and such?
Good for you. But if you were only interested in the phone, then perhaps you'd be better off with a dumbphone. For many of us, though, we are interested in the apps, and how much money people are making.
As a developer for both, I will say that making an elegant and attractive UI for iOS is exponentially easier than on Android. The Android gui designers suck ass.
The carpenter could refuse to build the house you know, he/she does have free will.
Yeah? He also has a family to feed, house, and clothe. Get off your fucking high horse.
Blaming it on management is just an attempt to hide the fact that you were unable to show your manager why what they wanted was a bad idea.
Because management always listens, right?
Perhaps sales needs a reverse-commission as well. For every sale they get by promising things that just aren't possible, they also have to pay back the commission if the deadline is slipped.
While I agree mostly, there are also a lot of crappy programmers that do crappy work all on their own.
No more than anyone else in the space. Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, they all have fairly offensive litigation heavy records.
Was that before or after the stuff FingerWorks was doing before they were bought by Apple in 2005?
You wouldn't; that'd be stupid. However, there generally is some delay between when you actually invent the thing, when you file the patent, and when the patent is grant. Lawyers need time to write the application, patent clerks need time to review it. 6 years probably wouldn't happen, but one or two might.
On the other hand, some of your researchers might have created something in 2001, but the company didn't think it was worth the time and money to patent it. Then a few years later, the winds of tech start blowing in that direction. So you dust off the logbooks and such, and patent it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really hold up in a patent lawsuit, as it's not an actual implementation of the idea. It's just a rendering. You'd have to show a device actually using it.
No, they really couldn't. It's basically the Prisoner's dilemma. If all agree to stop playing and reform, then things would work out better for everyone. However, because they are run by humans, that won't happen, because if even one company keeps playing, then all are fucked. And if only one stops playing, then that company is royally fucked.
So no, you can't really single out a single "player" for hating.
Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.