backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Oct 19 at 10:06 AM


  (Source: Haloz)
"They build a shiny sparkling thing that attracts users and then they control people's access to those things"

You may recall that top video game maker Valve Corp., makers of the Half-LifeCounterstrikePortal, and Left 4 Dead series, as well as the hit video-game distribution client Steam, recently aired some of its titles on Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) Mac computers for the first time following some teasers.

But while Valve now is vending products for Apple's personal computer platform, it appears like there's little love between the firms.  Valve president and owner Gabe Newell blasted the Cupertino tech giant for its dictatorial approach to the mobile market.

He comments, "I suspect Apple will launch a living room product that redefines people's expectations really strongly and the notion of a separate console platform will disappear.  I'm worried that the things that traditionally have been the source of a lot of innovation are going - there's going to be an attempt to close those off so somebody will say 'I'm tired of competing with Google, I'm tired of competing with Facebook, I'll apply a console model and exclude the competitors I don't like from my world.'"

He continues, commenting that Apple has the "wrong philosophical approach" in its closed model.  

He adds, "I consider Apple to be very closed.  Let's say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins. You can't exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent and they don't care that you only have 7 percent to play with." 

To be fair, Valve might be being a bit hypocritical here as its Steam is also a closed platform, as the interviewer challenged.  Mr. Newell brushed this question aside, saying that while Steam isn't free, Valve does offer much free engine code and other tools to developers.

David Bluhm, president and chief executive of game company Z2Live, a mobile-focused gamemaker, jumped to Apple's defense after Mr. Newell's remarks, commenting, "I would argue Apple's system is very open but very proprietary ... it's open with their rules."

Source: TechNW: Best and worst of times for games, Valve vs. Apple



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Glad someone sees this...
By quiksilvr on 10/13/2011 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 5
Seriously, 30% is ball-constricting high, and on top of that they're tighter than a nun with their rules and regulations.

Oh, you made an app that can sync to iTunes via Wifi? No you didn't!

Oh, you made an app that toggles Flash support? Nope.

Oh, you made copy and paste app (yes, this also happened)? No.




RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Flunk on 10/13/2011 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft and Google's Marketplaces also charge a 30% fee. Microsoft's is locked as tightly as the iPhone too. I'm not an Apple fan but this is common for smartphones.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By davepermen on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By augiem on 10/13/2011 1:34:45 PM , Rating: 5
Xbox live existed long before Apple's app store. Same model. People need to quit giving apple credit for everything they did not invent. Apple refines, not invents.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By augiem on 10/13/2011 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 4
oh and gee every single feature phone with java since god knows when has had verizon/sprint/att store where you buy your software... There was no other way!. This was nothing new. Another example of Apple coming to the game late and marketing the hell out of it to the point the ignorant people don't know any better and think they invented it. People have such short memories.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Solandri on 10/13/2011 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 5
The model is older than that. Back in the late 1980s, before the Internet really took off, people were getting their online apps and services via walled gardens like AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, and DELPHI. Once you signed up with one, everything you saw, everything you could do, the people you could interact with, was basically controlled by the company you signed up with.

Then came the Internet, which broke down all those walls. It eliminated the vendor lock-in, made it useless for them to charge extra for their (usually inferior) services, allowed anyone and everyone to see and participate in anything and everything. You could even make your own net-based service if you wanted, which many did with great success (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, etc).

This was why Windows didn't get a TCP/IP stack until 1995 (a year after the Internet went mainstream) - Bill Gates was convinced the walled garden network model would win out (Microsoft's horse in the race was MSN), and the Internet was just a passing fad. He did what he could to make it harder for Windows users to get on the Internet. After the great networking liberation we experienced in 1994-1995 when the Internet became mainstream, it's really sad to see people flocking back to the walled gardens, not knowing nor understanding what it is they're giving up. At least with Android you can choose to install a different market or download apps and files from the net.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2011 5:07:35 PM , Rating: 5
Not all of us were stuck in walled gardens back in the late 80's/early 90's. There were many of us that freely participated in the BBS system, dialing into hundreds or even thousands of different home-built and home-run BBS's, sharing ideas (through message boards!) and sharing software/pictures/audio etc. via the file section... and... get this, even gaming via door games.

BBS's were great, 2400 bps was not. Even still, we learned to live with and love it.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2011 5:09:32 PM , Rating: 3
Oh and I forgot to mention that some of these boards even had backdoor access to usenet (through delayed feeds) and... sub-boards that were underground to even the mainstream BBS community that had its own unique community. If you knew the right people or information, you could open those doors too.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By FaaR on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Dradien on 10/18/2011 10:57:11 AM , Rating: 1
"subject to some random Android manufacturer's good will to update my phone with security patches (often never happens, even on phones as new as just 6 months old),"

..What? My Droid Incredible came out April, 2010, and it just got an upgrade.

Might want to check your facts.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By MartyLK on 10/13/2011 10:08:36 PM , Rating: 1
Nah...we all prefer to believe Apple created it all and the others are copying them. In fact, Apple has been very lenient with the companies they are suing.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Wolfpup on 10/14/2011 10:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. PalmOS was completely open-so was Windows Mobile. I guess Windows Phone 7 isn't? Everything has to go through their store?

Android is at least open, usually (except I guess for AT&T phones...)


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By dark matter on 10/13/2011 12:25:59 PM , Rating: 4
Ask yourself "why is it common for smartphones"

The answer = Apple.

RDF makes you forget.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By lecanard on 10/14/2011 2:39:19 PM , Rating: 3
Apps are 30%, but WP7 and Android let you link to your own store for content (e.g., Kindle books) without demanding 30% of any purchase. Apple doesn't.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 2:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft's systems are the most locked down if we're talking about XBox Live. Certification is the hardest, it is harder for indie developers to get their games on it than Steam or iOS, and it doesn't allow for cross-platform multiplayer while Steam allows for PC/Mac/PS3 multiplayer and iOS has cross-platform multiplayer with Android.

If we're talking about WP7 then yes, its policies are about as restrictive as iOS, which isn't bad at all considering that iOS has the biggest selection of mobile software right now. WP7 is certainly more open then the 360, so I'm not sure it is right to criticize it.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By davepermen on 10/13/2011 12:06:56 PM , Rating: 3
or remove the existing (and on all phones working) Siri from the marketplace and block any existing customers from the Siri servers to have a new feature to sell for the iPhone 4s?


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, you made an app that can sync to iTunes via Wifi? No you didn't!


Wait...are you serious? Can someone confirm this. I cannot believe that's blocked! I know I shouldn't be shocked, because it's Apple, but why the hell can't you do something this benign!

See that's why I went Android. I literally would rage if I had to deal with restrictions like this on simple everyday stuff.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By dark matter on 10/13/2011 12:28:08 PM , Rating: 5
You'll do as you'll told in LaLaApple land.

I can only conclude that Apple owners must be the submissive kind.

Use that to your advantage, if you were so inclined.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By tayb on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Manch on 10/14/2011 2:34:16 AM , Rating: 3
Based off of your conclusion, I postulate that chicks with iphones have daddy issues.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By lagomorpha on 10/15/2011 8:23:52 AM , Rating: 3
Well we already know they're easier to get into bed.

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhone...


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By quiksilvr on 10/13/2011 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 3
This was blocked on previous iterations. I believe NOW (as in within the past couple weeks), iOS5 and iTunes 10.5 lets you do Wifi sync. But last year when iPhone 4 came out, this feature was not available. So someone made it, asked for approval, and Apple promptly said NO.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/05/wifi-sync-iphon...


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By tayb on 10/13/2011 9:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
You can. It exists as a feature of iOS 5 which is most likely why it is blocked.

I left iOS to go to Android but I wish I hadn't. I don't know what everyone else sees in Android but I certainly don't see it. Sluggish UI, weak app store, and the added bonus of carriers putting un-removable crapware on your phone.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By RjBass on 10/13/2011 11:24:35 PM , Rating: 5
Ya, that is why we flash our OS to a stock OS or go with a new mod like Cyanogen. If we don't like the selection of Apps from the market we then go to Amazon, or find the app we want on the internet and side load it.

If we are power users, we don't buy old outdated sluggish phones, we get the newer ones like the Galaxy S II, Infuse etc...

We have selection, expandable storage, replaceable battery, more app stores, more choices, more choices and more choices.

Ya I can see why you don't like Android, it's because your a moron.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Alphafox78 on 10/14/2011 10:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sonds like a big hassle... who wants to reflash a phone to a non supported rom an void their warranty on day one?


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By RjBass on 10/14/2011 10:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
When I got my original Galaxy S, I flashed it from Android 2.1 to stock Android 2.2. Not long after I started having hardware issues, mainly the well known GPS issue that plagued early Galaxy S phones. I then reflashed it back to the original ROM from AT&T, brought it back to the store, and when asked about it, I told them I reset the phone back to original settings in hopes of curing the problem to no avail. The clerk then handed me a new phone.

Flashing a Samsung Android phone is easy, only takes about 30 minutes and does WONDERS for the phone. My son has become an expert in the subject and flashes his fellow students phones for about $50 each.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By corduroygt on 10/13/2011 12:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
You realize Steam takes a similar cut from its online store, right?


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 1:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
So? That doesn't make what Valve said any less true. I'm not even sure if they are directly comparable. Developers are free to publish their games on the Internet for everyone and anyone to use if they so choose. However if you want to develop iOS apps, you HAVE to go through the App Store.

Valve is offering a service and therefore should expect some compensation. They aren't forcing game dev's to use Steam are they?


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By corduroygt on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because Valve doesn't control the Windows operating system and the entire Internet?

You do NOT need Steam to get your game out there. Hello? Comparing this to Apple is a flawed analogy. Valve doesn't sell consumer devices or hardware of any kind.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By MrBlastman on 10/13/2011 1:56:04 PM , Rating: 5
Very true, I don't need Steam at all to get my game out there. There are other places like Direc2drive and Gog.com for instance.

Steam does provide a lot of value, though (unlike Apple's store) with their sales. I'd say the bulk of my gaming purchases in the last couple of years have been through Steam (quantity-wise, not dollar wise) through these sales. When they start offering games for 2.50 - 5.00, I find myself giving in. In fact, I've built up such a backlog of titles now I have no reason at all to buy anything new for years to come.

That doesn't mean I won't though. Note I said quantity-wise. I've probably spent more dollars outside of Steam in the occasional purchase I make; mostly it is money spent on flight simulators as I feel the developers need every cent due to the small niche market it caters to.

I like Steam. I hate Apple's store and i-tunes. No, I loathe i-tunes. Anything that is invasive enough to brake my capability to burn CD's is bad enough I don't want it ever again.

I do feel a little bit like though that Valve is worried about what Apple might do in the future. As they should be. Apple, as much as I hate them along with everyone else, probably still has a few Steve tricks left up their sleeves and with marketing muscle, might put a dent in some markets (like Steam) that we don't see yet. The only problem is, they lack Steve, which, I feel was the true magician behind the magic show. The stagehands can only pull so much off once the magician has left the show...


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 1
Shut up Tony. You don't get the point, as usual.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/14/2011 8:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
You must be a miserable person, the name calling, that only serves to show how small minded you really are. Grow up. Seriously.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/2011 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm one of the happiest people you'll ever meet. Trolling horrible posters like Leroy is hilarious


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 6:46:00 PM , Rating: 1
Note that he started the name calling in every single case. He's one of the most short-fused and vicious posters here. If he wants to sling shit then he should be ready to get it back instead of crying like a little baby.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/15/2011 11:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't believe he did. Calling him trailer trash, redneck and other various names, that's you. Like I said, grow up.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/16/2011 6:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
Oh no, that was loooong after he started with me....


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2011 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Give me a break, you can't be THAT thin skinned. The worst I have ever called you was the occasional "idiot", as I do with almost everyone I argue with here. I've never gone into your background, or made stupid assumptions about you based on where you live, or anything like that.

Your attacks don't bother me, but they're really mean spirited and just kind of immature. It makes it seem like I'm debating with someone in middle school. I'm half expecting you to resort to "yo momma" jokes soon.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/19/2011 6:33:03 AM , Rating: 1
"Idiot" opens up the gate to mean spirited, sorry dude. Don't sling shit if you're not ready to get it back.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Netscorer on 10/13/2011 1:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
That is true, but Steam does not require that vendor can not sell their product elsewhere for whatever price fancies them at the moment. As a result, gamers can often have a choice to purchase game on Steam or go to other sellers for a smaller price. This is true even for Steamwork-only games.
Apple dictates that you can not sell your goods elsewhere for a lower price then what you charge via iPhone/iPad. This rule is what prompted Amazon to start their own Tablet and Marketplace.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:34:39 PM , Rating: 1
Apple doesn't enforce pricing for applications on other platforms. You are getting confused with subscription and in-app sales.

As it stands, they revoked that change a few months ago: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20070258-17/appl...

Clearly it was a terrible idea. Either way, Apple doesn't control app pricing on other platforms. To go beyond the policies of other closed systems like XBox Live (which is COMPLETELY locked down), iOS apps have no restrictions talking to apps on other platforms either. This means cross-platform multiplayer between iOS and Android handsets.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:34:39 PM , Rating: 1
Apple doesn't enforce pricing for applications on other platforms. You are getting confused with subscription and in-app sales.

As it stands, they revoked that change a few months ago: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20070258-17/appl...

Clearly it was a terrible idea. Either way, Apple doesn't control app pricing on other platforms. To go beyond the policies of other closed systems like XBox Live (which is COMPLETELY locked down), iOS apps have no restrictions talking to apps on other platforms either. This means cross-platform multiplayer between iOS and Android handsets.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By kleinma on 10/14/2011 10:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
Steam as an actual platform is totally free though. Sure you pay for the content, but with apple you pay for the platform and the content. with apple raking in HUGE margins all along the way, sitting on tons of cash, and doing nothing with it except flaunting a high market cap.


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/2011 6:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
There is tons of free content on iTunes. I'd wager that most of the applications that people buy on any mobile device is free.

The business models are different. Valve primarily makes money from software sales while Apple and some other companies make the money from selling hardware. Software is very secondary to them. iTunes is the largest seller of digital music and applications in the world and its net profit is only around 10%, well below the average 25% for all of their products. Gross revenue for iTunes is also far below the rest of Apple's products, so again, it isn't really where they make money. So why do apps in the first place?

Applications are obviously there to give value to the product, but from a pure financial standpoint they increase the cost of switching platforms. To entirely switch platforms whether it is Windows/OS X/PS3/360/Android/iPhone/Windows Phone 7 has cost involved because they all hook the customer in with purchases made for that one platform.

On a side note, it is awesome that with Steamplay you automatically get both OS X and Windows versions from a single purchase, same with Blizzard and Battlenet. But again, that's one more incentive to stay on the Steam platform. Valve's intention is for the Steam platform to be completely hardware agnostic. It's been on OS X for well over a year, and putting it on PS3 and the failed attempt to get it on XBox is just the beginning. If they see a reason to put it on mobile devices they will.

It is a very different approach, a completely closed system based around DRM that they intend to have on multiple hardware platforms and operating systems.

It totally makes sense since Steam's profit is entirely based on the sale of software. As you said, they give away the platform for free and then sell goods within it. It's just like people who say that TF2 or League Of Legends are free. Yeah, they're "free-to-play", but companies make a fortune from transactions made within the game. Riot isn't sponsoring half a million in tournament prizes this year because customers aren't buying characters and skins. :)


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/15/2011 6:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd wager that most of the applications that people buy on any mobile device is free.
How can something you buy, be free?


RE: Glad someone sees this...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 7:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, good catch. :)

I'd wager that most of the applications people DOWNLOAD on any mobile device is free.

There, corrected. :)

The point still stands, there are very different business models at work here. Software gives very little profit to Apple as the bulk of revenue goes to software developers, music publishers, and movie studios. They make their money selling hardware. Software partly serving to increase the cost of switching platforms.

It is the opposite with Steam. Valve makes the bulk of their income from selling software, particularly their own, so it is in their interest to be as hardware agnostic as possible. They're on both Mac and PC, and they're just starting to be on console with PS3.

What is similar is that there is an increased cost to stop using Steam or switch away from it entirely since that software can only be used when running it.

I have over 250 titles on Steam at this point. There is no chance I'm buying a game from another download service unless a publisher runs their own, like Blizzard does with Battlenet for Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

In the end they are all closed systems based around DRM of some sort, they just go about it in different ways because of their different business models.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 7:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I just checked and I have closer to 340 games in my Steam library. WTF, jeez, those cheap Christmas bundles threw a lot of stuff in I had no idea about and will probably never play. :)


By TakinYourPoints on 10/16/2011 6:59:41 AM , Rating: 3
70% profit is an awesome split for developers if you consider that traditional retail/publisher deals were closer to 20% profit. This is amazing if you're an independent, and the distribution platform puts you on even footing with all of the other applications out there.

I don't know what benchmark you're using to determine that 70% profit is too low considering how much worse and cumbersome it used to be.

John Carmack has gone over this several times: http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/id+Software+ne...

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/app-store-is-th...

quote:
"You know, I really, really like the app store platform as far as being able to remove obstacles to getting your product out," he told The Telegraph.

"You don't have to cut deals with publishers. It's almost completely egalitarian on there. It's great to see all the small teams that wind up making these breakout hit games for the Apple devices," he said.


I'm sorry, but 70% on these "flat" platforms is WAY better than it used to be. People forget that developers were chomping at the bit once Apple announced their split. One of the better deals out there that is now a widely accepted standard on mobile.


hmmm
By Stuka on 10/13/2011 11:36:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"I would argue Apple's system is very open but very proprietary ... it's open with their rules."

Is this not like saying that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba, Kim's North Korea, Mussolini's Italy, or Ahmadinejad's Iran were/are free countries? To quote Henry Ford, "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." Is that open?




RE: hmmm
By torpor on 10/13/2011 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To quote Henry Ford, "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." Is that open?


Yes, because you can paint it if you want to. No one's stopping you. Hell, you can turbocharge it, convert it to run on ethanol or moonshine or straight electricity. You can take off the wheels and put tank treads on it. It's YOURS, you can DO WHAT YOU WANT with it.

If the Model T engine would freeze up if you paint the exterior, you'd have something. Because if you mess with your iToy, it gets bricked.


RE: hmmm
By ex2bot on 10/13/2011 1:33:53 PM , Rating: 1
Look, if you're just trolling, whatever. But that's just not true. You can jailbreak Apple devices. They don't "brick." There are lots of people out there using jailbroken iOS devices.

Look, I know Apple's controlling tendencies rub some people the wrong way. Thank goodness for free enterprise. Similarly, some of Microsoft and Google's practices have rubbed me the wrong way. Remember the ruthless Microsoft of the 90s? Or the XBOX 360s dying left and right (I've owned 4--no more for me). How about activation of Windows? It's been a terrible hassle for me, and I bought the license!

There are enough hassles to go around. **It's good to have choices.**


RE: hmmm
By Freeseus on 10/13/2011 5:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with some of your points, it is wise to remember that Apple lost a lawsuit to shut down jailbroken iPhones. Prior to this, Apple, just like Google, wanted to shut down jailbroken phones.


RE: hmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 5:06:52 PM , Rating: 1
Jailbreaking a phone is NOT without risk. You can brick the phone, it's happened before, that chance is always there.

My point is why should I endorse a product where I HAVE to jailbreak it to do what I want it to do?


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:56:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My point is why should I endorse a product where I HAVE to ROOT it to do what I want it to do?


Fixed that for all the Android fanboys


RE: hmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 10:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Except you never have to root an Android phone, so whatever. Android doesn't block core functionality and apps arbitrarily.

By the way I just installed a Playstation emulator on my phone and it works right out of the box, no ROOT needed. To do the same on the iPhone you have to Jailbreak it because they arbitrarily decided "emulation not allowed".

I don't know why you keep wasting your time posting this stuff. You love your iPhone, great I'm happy for you. But the way Apple does things just isn't right.


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: hmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 2:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
lol nice relativism attempt. So because there's a few examples of it taking place on Android, it's now just as locked down as iOS and isn't really open? Give me a break. Open doesn't mean total anarchy. Of course there's going to be a few restrictions, but there's just no comparison.

Also your link is kind of bunk. You can still get that app on the net, but of course they are going to remove something like "easy root" from the Marketplace. Hello are you thick? Did you miss this part?

"In the end, the Easy Root situation resolved itself by way of Android's basic tenets . Rather than worrying about the Android Market guidelines and policies, the developer, Unstable Apps, decided to offer the app directly through its own Web site. Android developers have the freedom to deploy their apps any way they see fit, including giving it away as a free download. "

And what the hell are you on about with Google search? Why in the hell would Google "block" the use of Google search apps? The only proof of your claim I can find is Google search being temporarily pulled from the Market because of issues with the software. The Verizon Fascinate is an isolated incident, and it's Verizon's fault not Google/Android.

Sorry but aside from a few cherrypicked examples of ancient phones and ONE carrier blocking Google one ONE phone because they made an exclusive deal with Microsoft, you're completely and dishonestly manipulating the extent of this. I still maintain that by and large there is NO reason to ROOT a modern Android phone.

I find your attempt to warp reality by suggesting Apple doesn't completely throw you in jail when you buy an iPhone because of these examples a joke.


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/2011 6:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol nice relativism attempt. So because there's a few examples of it taking place on Android, it's now just as locked down as iOS and isn't really open?


You're REALLY denying that users still don't hack around the restrictions and custom UI that some carriers and hardware manufacturers put on Android handsets?

Who's living in an RDF now, wtf dude...


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/2011 7:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, I almost forgot you believe that Obama, who is completely in the pockets of big business and Wall Street, is a socialist.

I'm happy people like you have a place to voice your hilarious opinions.


RE: hmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2011 7:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
Socialized medicine? Tax and spend policies? Pulling the "blame the rich" card constantly? He's a CHAMPION for wealth redistribution, and you think he's not a socialist? The Wall Street Reform bill?

I don't care who he's in the pocket of. He's managed to consolidate Federal power and influence to record levels. That makes him a socialist. I can't believe we're actually debating this, only the most ardent Leftist can seriously look at the quantum leap of Government power and regulation this administration has cultured and come away with any other conclusion.

You're just a complete idiot.


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 2:33:14 AM , Rating: 1
President Bush was at least as bad as Obama in most of these ways. He was ostensibly a conservative but he spent more than any Democratic president before him, and this is before we even include the two wars. Obama's health care plans are only a continuation of what Bush started, just look at what he did to Medicare in opposition of his own party. The difference is that Bush taxed and somehow believed that increasing spending without increasing taxes would somehow work.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opi...

As far as the "tax the rich" thing goes, even Buffet and Gates think it is ridiculous that they get an 18% average tax rate before taking deductions while their secretaries are at the 35% rate. Hell, I'm in the top tax bracket and I think it's crazy.

For the sake of comparison, if you believe that Obama's predecessor was a fiscal conservative in any way then you're just drinking the neocon kool-aid. And if you believe that Obama is a leftist, you're an idiot, the guy makes Reagan and Goldwater look like liberals.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/bachmann...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/09/w...

I can't believe you actually believe the shit you say, not just on this topic but on anything. It's all based on rhetoric and emotion with backup by fact or logic being a distant second. Well, I can believe it; I see your posts here way too often. I guess being brainwashed by Fox News or conservative radio or whatever you listen to by the outhouse every day will do that.

I do have to say congratulations on being able to type your responses out though, I'd have guessed that generations of inbreeding would have crushed that ability out of you. Congrats


RE: hmmm
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2011 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Whats with bringing Bush out of left field on this? Every Conservative knows he's no Conservative. He was more of a moderate in his policies. So your argument is that because bush dipped his toe into socialism on a few policies, Obama isn't one? Yeah that's just brilliant...

Jesus can we have ONE Obama discussion where someone doesn't bring up Bush? It's been almost 4 years since he was relevant to discussions.

quote:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/bachmann...


Bacchman is an idiot and NOT in office so she doesn't make policy. This is a straw man, pointless link. This doesn't disprove Obama's socialist policies.

quote:
As far as the "tax the rich" thing goes, even Buffet and Gates think it is ridiculous that they get an 18% average tax rate before taking deductions while their secretaries are at the 35% rate. Hell, I'm in the top tax bracket and I think it's crazy.


Another RED HERRING. What other people think doesn't change anything in this discussion. It's about Obama and his policies, which are inherently socialist! If Bill Gates also said everyone should give as much to charity as he has, would you then fight to make it mandatory?

quote:
And if you believe that Obama is a leftist, you're an idiot, the guy makes Reagan and Goldwater look like liberals.


So Obama is MORE Conservative than Reagan now? Oh just come on! You're one confused kid. How can you even say that.

quote:
I can't believe you actually believe the shit you say


I know the feeling.

You can make all the arguments you want, the only one I really need to make is pointing out Obamacare. Sorry, the man is a socialist.

If I've been "brainwashed" then what about the two entire generations that have been fed Liberal dominated media? Oh let me guess, there's no such thing right? So Obama isn't a socialist, and MSNBC etc etc isn't Liberal leaning.

Denial on your level is just astounding and sad to witness.

p.s. Ignoring your petty continued personal attacks because, quite honestly, I'm just better than you.


RE: hmmm
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 6:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Herp

Herpa derpa derp derp derp herp derp derp

Derp


You make some compelling points.

BTW, I found a photo of you and your wife last night: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-as...

Who said a brother and sister can't make a lovely couple?


RE: hmmm
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/15/2011 7:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Grow the fuck up....seriously.


RE: hmmm
By ex2bot on 10/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: hmmm
By lightfoot on 10/13/2011 2:19:52 PM , Rating: 5
Apple outsourced it to Foxconn.


Eh...
By Sahrin on 10/13/2011 11:39:31 AM , Rating: 2
Right sentiment from the wrong person. Apple sucks; but given the price fight they're having with EA (good God I can't believe I'm taking EA's side in a fight with Valve) which amounts to "You can only sell content on our terms in Steam" I don't really think Gabe has a place to be telling Apple off. Certainly there is a difference of order of magnitude, but Valve is a budding monopolist as well. Show Apple how it's done, Gabe - open up Steam.




RE: Eh...
By HrilL on 10/13/2011 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 3
They may becoming a monopoly but they're not abusing it. Steam has the lowest prices to buy games from what I've seen. I see cheap prices for games as good for consumers. Vavle also gives away some of their games for free. Like TF2 for example. Valve is moving to an in game content model for making money and giving their games away for free. I support Valve more than any other publisher. They're the only ones that actually understand what gamers/consumers want.


RE: Eh...
By Lonyo on 10/13/2011 5:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Try looking harder.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=21983...

Just an example of where someone asks about a game (on Steam) and people point out where it can be hard for less (from non-Steam sources), even though it REQUIRES Steam.

Steam prices are terrible except when there's a sale on. And even then it's touch and go for many titles, especially outside the US.


RE: Eh...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 7:21:54 PM , Rating: 4
It really depends. The bundle sales Steam has during mid-summer and the holidays are ridiculous. Probably half the games in my Steam library were bought from their Christmas sales.


RE: Eh...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 2:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm also generally fine paying Steam's higher prices. The few extra bucks I spend means I don't have physical media or keys to deal with, and I get auto-patching. All of this makes Steam purchases well worth it.

I don't really sell old games so if I could buy digital copies of console games on say one that I know I'm going to keep, I'd do that as well. I hope this is more common by the time the next-gen consoles roll around, right now you have to wait 6-9 months minimum to see a AAA game hit digital distribution on XBL.


RE: Eh...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 6:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I LOVE Steam, but I don't have blinders either. They are a business, not a charity.

quote:
Vavle also gives away some of their games for free. Like TF2 for example.


They did this because selling weapons and cosmetics is way more profitable than selling the game by itself. Like, insanely profitable. Some weapon bundles cost more than TF2 ever did by itself. By making TF2 free they opened themselves up to a never ending stream of revenue from the Mann Store.

League Of Legends does the same thing. It may be free for many people, but many also spend far more than the $40 they otherwise would have if the cost was up front. Riot makes a fortune selling characters, skins, and XP/IP boosts.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/06/10

Free to play is not a charity, it is insanely profitable when done properly.


RE: Eh...
By TSS on 10/13/2011 8:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
They're not really cheaper then just buying a game in a store here in europe on average. A big store hear nearby's usually cheaper because they buy in bulk, which steam can't really do. What they are really good with though are sales and specials.

For instance i bought civ 5 on steam, because they had an 75% off sale. good luck finding that kinda money off in any store, virual or real life. It was only for a day (or weekend), but it allowed me to pick up a good game at a small price. This way i've already spent more money on steam then in an real store the past few months, but i've gotten ten times the amount of games for it. simply through massive % off. I don't feel bad about buying it at such a low price because they offer it at such a low price, but still imo it's a bit much.

I still check the steam store often for daily sales and such. But if valve wants me to starts shopping there on a more regular bases, they can start with knocking off 10% across the board. Otherwise i'll just walk to the store and get a physical copy.


RE: Eh...
By TakinYourPoints on 10/14/2011 6:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've actually rebought games I had physical copies of because Steam makes everything more convenient with its autopatching and not having to worry about registration keys.

Company Of Heroes is a perfect example. I rebought it on Steam only about six months after I bought the physical copy because it was such a patch nightmare (standard for Relic). Even after selling the physical copy it was still at a net loss for me, but I was fine with it, the benefit from Steam made it worth it.

The same applies to many other games I've rebought over the years, or when a game is cheaper (and non-Steamworks) via retail but I get it on Steam anyways because the service adds so much more.

DRM and lock-in is generally seen as a bad thing, but if the overall service is superior to the "open" alternatives then I'm ok with it. I don't use "closed system" as a pejorative when they are well executed, and the most popular ones are very good at this point.


a little different
By bbcdude on 10/13/2011 1:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to choose sides here......but.

Valve creates steam, an application that works on all computers (and that now includes apple). They have become popular, yes I use it for many games, and they get into a contract dispute with EA to use there service, correct so far right? But EA can sell games to use on all the computers anyway, they are just being told if you wanna distribute through steam, you have to meet their rules.

It isn't like steam is saying you can't sell products to be used on the hardware people bought without using our service, that would be wrong.......oh wait.

Steam is a service that can be used by computer owners, but it is not the exclusive way to get content for their computers. This is a huge difference from apple, who have been using a complete stranglehold on all content for their tablets and mobil units, to force everyone to either meet their rules or they are denied access to the entire platform. There is no other way to get products, but through apples store. If people can't see a difference in that, then they are actively keeping their eyes shut.

I like steam, but I also like the option to go buy a game in the store. If EA has a game I like, I can still get it. Can Iphone users still get a game apple won't sell?




RE: a little different
By ex2bot on 10/13/2011 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they can. They can jailbreak, if they wish.

Unlike some, I am a fan of closed systems . . . that work really, really well. Like iOS. Besides, it's not like Apple's limiting the apps too much. There are about half a million apps available. Apple wants to control the quality of the platform by approving apps. They've made a few bad decisions, such as keeping Google Voice out for quite a while. But they also reject apps that don't do what they promise.

I like Steam too. Nice to have something that's super easy to use and not a hassle. Plus low prices.


RE: a little different
By DT_Reader on 10/13/2011 3:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple wants to control the quality of the platform by approving apps.
That, and the 30% cut doesn't hurt, either.

The best reason to choose Android over iPhone or Windows Phone is that while you can go to the official Android Marketplace, you don't have to go there exclusively. I'll bet that's the #1 reason Android is beating iPhone sales.


RE: a little different
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 7:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately it is also why developer support is relatively weak. I constantly hear from cross-platform mobile developers that iOS versions sell far more than their Android counterparts. Others see what's out there with Android and they just won't touch it.

With iOS and WP7 you have a defined set of devices and a good SDK. Android has neither. The only thing holding back WP7 development at this point is the low number of users, otherwise I'd put it on parity with iOS from a developer standpoint. Cost:benefit will get there if WP7 manages to sell.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/15/john-carmack-ios-...
http://www.cultofmac.com/90397/id-software-ios-gam...

From an enterprise standpoint Android makes even less sense due to the OS having no real emphasis on security, which further reduces application development in that specific area. That's a different topic of discussion though.


RE: a little different
By bbcdude on 10/15/2011 2:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying apple doesn't have the right to do what they do. I am just saying that Valve has every right to be pissed if they get locked out of a big market. EA has the right to get mad if they get shut off steam.

I just won't buy into a closed proprietary system ever again unless there is no choice. That is my choice, and the the general consumer is very worried about it too. So far apple has allowed enough apps in that most people are content, but there have been apps kept out for no reason but to enforce apples control.

It is apples right, but it is fine line between controlling a system and alienating your customers. So far apple has done a good job of walking it without going too far over.

Steam has done nothing to cross it either.


RE: a little different
By TakinYourPoints on 10/15/2011 7:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
I completely understand where you're coming from. That said, the market has a tendency to shake itself out. Apple's application process was restrictive and it hurt them for a while with developers and customers. They loosened up policies several times and now they have by far the best app market out there. Steam making any such transgressions would also result in backlash and then adjustments.

XBox Live is an interesting case. XBox Live Arcade has very hostile certification and approval policies, and unlike iOS/Android/Mac/PC/PS3 it doesn't allow for cross-platform multiplayer. The difference is that people don't seem to have issue with this. I'm guessing its because whatever harm it causes for XBLA developers doesn't matter since most core 360 users are more concerned with playing the newest Call Of Duty or whatever. Same goes for cross-platform multiplayer since more people own 360s anyway. All that other stuff doesn't really matter as much.

Again, I get where you're coming from. I also don't think that closed-platforms can just run willy-nilly over their customers though. If they overstep lines then people will generally rebel or complain. It is happening to an extent with XBLA since those developers are favoring Windows/OSX and iOS development more and more, but again, it won't matter to Microsoft in the big picture since that is such a small concern compared to the huge numbers they get with the latest Call Of Duty or Halo game.

None of these other platforms have such massive individual titles to carry them in the same way. They rely on a variety of software that isn't necessarily exclusive, so even though they are closed they rely on being more amenable to customers.

Sorry, rambling post there. :)


Why leave out Microsoft?
By batjohn on 10/13/2011 11:44:17 AM , Rating: 3
In the linked article he mentioned Apple and Xbox Live until the interviewer focused in on Apple. Why omit that and single out Apple? Not a big fan of Apple but I'm an equal opportunity hater when it comes to closed systems.




RE: Why leave out Microsoft?
By NellyFromMA on 10/13/2011 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Xbox live as an open system would make no sense...


RE: Why leave out Microsoft?
By DT_Reader on 10/13/2011 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Xbox live as an open system would make no sense...
...for Microsoft. I mean, if independents could develop Xbox games and sell them directly to consumers, how would Microsoft make money on that?

You're right, Xbox Live is nothing like iTunes.


RE: Why leave out Microsoft?
By Freeseus on 10/13/2011 5:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
iTunes is a pile of unorganized garbage and the antithesis of what Apple stands for from a design perspective.

Xbox live on the other hand is skillfully crafted and Sony would give it's left nut to have PSN be that agile.

You sir are correct. Xbox Live is nothing like iTunes.


RE: Why leave out Microsoft?
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
It is weird given that XBox Live is by far the most restrictive closed system out there. Developers for years have complained about how much worse XBL's certification process is compared to PS3 or iOS, and XBL cross-platform multiplayer is completely restricted while PS3 games can play with Mac/PC and iOS games can do multiplayer with Android.


The difference....
By yomamafor1 on 10/13/2011 11:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
....is that Valve doesn't go around filing injunction against everyone who makes a competing product.




RE: The difference....
By Bob Loblaw on 10/13/2011 12:10:26 PM , Rating: 5
But I thought this is how we innovate. I mean, Apple wouldn't do this if it was a douchey move, right?


RE: The difference....
By BZDTemp on 10/13/2011 12:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
LOL Good one


is it very hypocritical
By chuckecheeze on 10/16/2011 3:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
from newell to claim the high ground and say apple is closed when his own walled garden called steam is as closed if not more. He is just fuming at the fact that his closed steam is not needed at all on a mac. Mac programs dont have to be on their appstore. theyre everywhere. Developers who use steamworks are forced to sell their games on steam, and valve takes a cut of their sales, and nobody knows how much is it, since valve doesnt give out numbers unlike apple. Steam may make sense in the world of windows, but not on macs, it's just another unnecessary middle(fat)man that takes a cut. Why have it?




RE: is it very hypocritical
By TakinYourPoints on 10/16/2011 6:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you do need Steam if you want to play any of Valve's games on OS X. I just checked on my Mac, and the only Valve game on my Windows PC that isn't available on Mac is the DOTA2 beta, and that makes sense since it is still a work in progress.

I believe there are some other Steamworks games on OS X, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. I don't even really know the number of Steamworks games on Windows.

quote:
Mac programs dont have to be on their appstore. theyre everywhere.


This goes for non-Steamworks games on Windows as well. Again, I don't know the number off the top of my head. Actually, the last game I got, Rage (puke), uses Steamworks, but I still don't think it's anywhere near the majority.

quote:
Steam may make sense in the world of windows, but not on macs, it's just another unnecessary middle(fat)man that takes a cut. Why have it?


Auto-patching, unlimited downloads, cloud backups and syncing, screenshot/video gallery, friends list, etc etc. It's a business, no reason a good business can't make money if they make customers happy. I value the service of Steam even if I'm locked into it, I'll gladly buy all my games from them.

People criticize closed systems from Microsoft (who's XBox is the most walled off of the walled gardens out there), Apple, Steam, whatever, but for the most part they're great to use. People don't care about "open" or "closed" as long as it works well, and time and time again it's been shown that closed systems work pretty darn well.

The obvious exception is Sony with their month+ service outage and security leak, what a disaster that was.

In any case, I totally support Valve's right to profit from a closed platform available on multiple hardware platforms. Whatever DRM and platform lock-in they provide IMHO is outweighed by the convenience they offer.

I don't really agree with the rest of your points, but I also don't have a philosophical opposition to closed systems.

I do agree that Gabe has no place criticizing Apple for the same sort of platform lock-in his own company does. The only difference is that he profits from software and as a result has a hardware agnostic platform, while Apple makes marginal income on software and profits from hardware instead. Different approaches that ultimately lead to similar platform lock-in. Again, I personally don't mind lock-in, but complaining about it when you run one of the biggest walled-gardens out there is strange. :)

On the topic of revenue sharing, Notch explained a while ago that he isn't putting Minecraft on Steam, and I suspect that revenue split and the fact that he has a hit game anyway is the main reason. It's the same reason EA is making their own service for Battlefield 3. Valve still hasn't officially revealed what their split is, but it's been said to have started at 50/50 (wow), was 60/40 for years, and went to a 70/30 split this year (no doubt due to the mobile model). This is from developer boards btw. Valve has never gone official with their figures, so take that as you will.


It's only bad if you're against change
By guffwd13 on 10/13/2011 12:12:48 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not condoning the way apple goes around beating everyone up and forcing others to change or die, but at the same time there is some good that can come of it.

If Apple (and as another person pointed out, Google and Microsoft as well), is forcing a 30% margin down everyone's throats, it's going to make everyone find ways to save money. This often involves cutting out the middle men - the ones everyone hates - like the MPAA or RIAA, and move to direct distribution. Not to say those organizations are entirely useless, but they're holding on to a model thats archaic and all but obsolete - hence the ridiculous legal battles over downloads (in the sense of the penalty amount not the legality of users actions).

It's really no different than Amazon, Walmart and other big box retailers forcing out mom and pop. Sure they're crushing the dreams of mom and pop, but we live in an age where we can buy almost anything online and and certain variety of things in stores. I feel bad for mom and pop, but they didn't have the volume to compete, and a book company, a music company or movie/tv companies will have to evolve their business model to continue to compete.

That is, after all, how capitalism works. If someone can set up a system that truly competes with Apple's iTunes, kudos to them and they deserve to take over the crown. If no one can over time, well that's where the government needs to step in (capitalism isn't perfect).

Not defending Apple, just saying it's not all boohoo.




By Freeseus on 10/13/2011 5:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Financial good may come of it.
Innovation suffers from it.


The opposite is Android
By tayb on 10/13/2011 9:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
Where developers don't make as much money and piracy/ripoff applications are a huge problem.

Android has way more market share than Apple but the Android Market is abysmal at best.




RE: The opposite is Android
By cjohnson2136 on 10/14/2011 8:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
Don't fool yourself both marketplaces have dozens of apps that are ripoffs of each other. There is no way you can have 100s of thousands of apps with out having ripoffs


Boom Failshot
By Bob Loblaw on 10/13/2011 12:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
I would've used the sniper from TF2 as an image since it's more relevant to the article.




Apple vs Valve
By Ramtech on 10/13/2011 3:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Valve with her closed platform complain about Apples closed platform Gimme a break




This is strange
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
I love Steam, XBox Live, the App Store, and many of the other closed systems out there, and I also love what Gabe and Valve have done for PC gaming. I need to get that out of the way first.

Gabe complaining about closed platforms is like a guy who runs one of the biggest brothels in Bangkok complaining about the sex trade. It's just weird. There are very few complaints he levels against other closed platforms that can't be directly applied towards Steam.

Even if we ignore the fact that Valve games can only be bought on Steam, even for third party games it is a closed system that is based around DRM.

quote:
"I consider Apple to be very closed," Newell said. "Let's say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins. You can't exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent and they don't care that you only have 7 percent to play with."

Doesn't Valve's Steam service also extract a "tax" on game companies that use the platform, Fries asked.

Newell said Steam gets a commission if games are sold through Steam, but developers can use its free tools and services and sell their games elsewhere and "we don't take anything."


Newell deflects this point by inferring that Apple would take a cut of an iOS application if it was sold on another platform, which of course is false. The 70/30 publisher/distributor split is also very standard. Unlike Apple, Valve has never been open about their split with publishers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was about the same. Saying "we don't take a cut on other platforms" is a slippery way to avoid that question.

There are degrees of open and closed out there. By far the most closed system is XBox Live as it does not allow for cross-platform multiplayer. There are also many anecdotes from independent developers re: their experience dealing with certification from Microsoft (Super Meat Boy devs, etc etc) and how much harder it is than iOS or PS3. The PS3 is much more open in terms of cross-platform multiplayer as it is allowed between PC and Mac, and Apple is very open in those terms. There are numerous games that are cross-platform between iOS and Android, and if someone released a game that was crossplatform between PC/Mac and iOS there would also be no problem. Apple really doesn't care in that regard.

PS3 is more open in that cross-platform multiplayer is allowed between PC/PS3/Mac (much thanks to Valve). Many cross-platform games exist on mobile platforms. Apple isn't at all restrictive about crossplatform gaming between iOS and Android handsets.

The biggest difference between consoles/iDevices and Steam is that Valve doesn't sell hardware. As far as software and policies go, they share way more in common than he's letting on.

Agree or disagree with the sentiment, that's fine, but the message is coming from the wrong person. I personally don't think "closed" is a bad thing, it is has led to very robust and stable platforms. Steam along with Battlenet have pretty much saved PC gaming, and both are very locked down systems based around DRM.




By AnnihilatorX on 10/14/2011 8:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"They build a shiny sparkling thing that attracts users and then they control people's access to those things"


Steam?
Last time I used steam it wouldn't let me play a $5 game in offline mode when I didn't have internet access.




Gaming
By rburnham on 10/14/2011 10:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
My concern with Apple is that they tend to ignore gaming hardware. I know gaming on a Mac is not a popular thing, but why not? I see plenty of their products using Intel graphics and I cringe. It would not be that hard to make discrete graphics standard on all of their products. Even the Airs could benefit from some type of GPU from Nvidia or AMD, even if it's just low end. Just give us enough to run Diablo III and I think people would be fine with that.




By Noubourne on 10/17/2011 6:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
At least Valve doesn't regularly deny someone the ability to sell a game on Steam, and then turn around and release a nearly identical game a year later - and then continue to block all variations from the platform, regardless of whether users might actually prefer to buy one with different preferences, options or combination of features.




Oh really Valve?
By johnsmith9875 on 10/19/2011 10:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
Is that why I can't play Half Life II without installing steam and having an internet connection even though I purchased a supposedly full copy of the game on CD?




So to summarise
By Tony Swash on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: So to summarise
By bbcdude on 10/13/2011 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
to summarize.

-Steam wanted access to apple, so they could sell there.
-Apple said no, only we control whats there.
-Steam is mad they are being shut out of a market.

I don't see anything in these facts that support your accusation that steam wants to or ever plans to control anything more than steam. It is the users choice if they want to use steam. What choices do you apple people have?

I will never use a platform or OS that I can not buy software for, from more than one place. It is stupid to let yourself be put in such a easily abused position.


RE: So to summarise
By Tony Swash on 10/13/2011 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 1
Correct me if I am wrong but Steam isn't a game, it isn't an app that does anything much, it's just a closed proprietary platform for selling and controlling the deployment of apps and games. Steam controls the deployment of all games that sign up to be distributed via Steam. Valve wants to control the distribution of all games if it can. Steam minus it's controlled content will be an empty space.

The aim of Steam is to offer a way to distribute a digital product (for a cut of the revenue), to prevent piracy, to ensure security and the absence of malware, and to distribute timely and easily accessible game and app updates. Steam wants to do on iOS devices exactly what what the iOS system and the App Store already do. Why bother? What additional function or advantage does Steam offer that the App Store doesn't already have?

The only thing Steam does is let Valve carve out a cut of the game revenue flow. Apple says no - we are going to have that cut. Bad for Valve good for Apple - but to the end user it makes not one iota of difference.

It's probably worth noting that the App Store has driven down prices for the end user more than Steam has. It is also worth noting that Steam keeps the percentage it takes, for offering the same service as the App Store, secret. Nobody knows for sure what Valve's cut is. Apple have a flat and completely transparent system for calculating the cost of using the App Store which is 30% for everyone.


RE: So to summarise
By ICBM on 10/13/2011 5:28:42 PM , Rating: 1
What is troubling is when iOS and OS X merge. How can I get software for my computer? Will the app store be the only place?


Steam is 40%
By jdietz on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Steam is 40%
By DT_Reader on 10/13/2011 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
As others have pointed out, your assertion is incorrect. Steam is a delivery system, not a platform. The PC is the platform. Game developers can chose to not use Steam - indeed, they have to chose to use it. iOS developers have no choice. Xbox developers have no choice. Windows Phone developers have no choice. Windows 8 Metro developers will have no choice. Android and PC developers do have a choice, which is why PCs and Android devices are better platforms for consumers as well as for developers.

Note that when Windows 8 debuts, the PC platform starts to come under Microsoft's full control. I predict that by Windows 9 Steam will be knocked out (and Valve on the ropes), as you will only be able to buy Windows 9 (Metro) applications through the Microsoft store, and Steam will be seen by MSFT as a way to circumvent that store, so Steam will not be allowed on Windows 9. At that point, following MSFT's lead, Mac OSX software will only be available from iTunes. Note that new Macs don't even offer DVD drives - you're expected to load all your software and content from "the cloud." Guess who's cloud?


RE: Steam is 40%
By TakinYourPoints on 10/13/2011 5:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Steam is a delivery system, not a platform. The PC is the platform.


Steam is actually very much a platform. Hardware isn't everything when defining one, you also have to look at the services in place to keep customers hooked in. Facebook succeeded over other social networking sites because it was highly extendable. This created a multitude of uses that fit the niche interests of many. Amazon is succeeding for the same reasons. Service and extendability. Both turned from products to platforms and this is why Steam is successful as well.

It not only provides a storefront, it also has social networking features, achievements (XBL's amazing contribution to keeping customers locked into a single platform), a place to upload screenshots and videos, and on and on. All of these services on top of their DRM serve to keep customers on Steam and away from other digital delivery platforms.

Steam is also trying to become hardware agnostic. They released on OS X last year and this year they released on PS3. If they could release on iDevices I know they would. It's hard to find a photo of Gabe without his iPad these days: http://i.imgur.com/O1bM4.png

Anyway, hardware is one part of it all, but software as platform is also a very important concept. All innovation from Valve, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon has been in this area the last few years. Steam is very much a platform.


it's a bit hypocritical
By zmatt on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: it's a bit hypocritical
By Camikazi on 10/13/2011 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
That is very true, since Steam is the only place I can download games from... wait a minute, it's not, I can get games from anywhere the developer wants to put it, can't do the same for Apple devices can ya? See not the same at all.


Clues
By Etern205 on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: Clues
By dark matter on 10/13/2011 12:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
Where's your blog? No seriously, if all you're going to do is post about a blog author and not the content, you better as hell have something better to offer....


RE: Clues
By Etern205 on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki