The Mixed Outlook for iPhone Gaming 99
With everyone talking about Apple's big announcement, it's unsurprising that commentators are discussing the possibilities of gaming on the iPhone. The DS and the PSP are both on N'Gai Croal's list of who is afraid of the iPhone, and with good reason. Touchscreen gaming on a high-resolution screen? Sounds like fun. TIME's lengthy run-down on the iPhone even mentions the possibilities of games on the small screen. Just the same, it's not all roses: Kotaku talks about the developer unfriendly nature of the platform, and how that could throw up barriers to the first game on the handheld.
Developer Unfriendly? (Score:4, Interesting)
iPod Games (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Developer Unfriendly? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, that pretty much eliminates the whole fucking point of having a browser that doesn't display a subset of HTML. If you're giving me a full web browser, you NEED to give me flash and java. Otherwise large portions of the web that would otherwise be accessible because I can view webpages are now closed to me. Yet another reason why this device is going to fail, I guess.
Given Apple's and Apple Fanboys' continual attempts to paint OSX as THE media platform of choice, this is an extremely horrible decision. But then, no flash, no java, no third party support... I guess this thing is ALL horrible decisions.
I have a Motorola V3i that I hacked to support video clips longer than one minute. The quality is pretty poor (actually it's the low resolution that hurts the most) but generally speaking the video tells the story. I can't imagine spending $600 on a phone with a camera and finding out that it doesn't do video. That's like spending $50,000 on a car and finding out it has no reverse gear - it doesn't make it totally worthless, especially if you're say purchasing it to race with, but it is a mind-bending omission.
Re:FOUR great devices in one package? (Score:4, Interesting)
Phil
who said anything about games? (Score:1, Interesting)
One of the major criticisms i have of most phones is that they try to do too much and do it badly. I have a Motorola A1000 and it's a heap of shit. The only reason i keep it is because it does everything i want it to. However it does it so apallingly that as soon as a phone comes out with similar features that is better i'm going to get it. It looks like the iPhone is that phone.
I also can't understand people criticising His Steveness' decision to have tight control over the platform.
I have a gameboy emulator and a SNES emulator on my A1000. They're both open source and written by god knows who, and they have been known to take my phone down with them. But even in its default configuration my phone can still crash. I think that's the worst thing that could ever happen - having a phone crash? It's an appliance! You wouldn't want to walk into your kitchen, put some food in the oven, set the timer and walk away only to come back to find a BSOD saying "Sorry, this oven has performed an illegal instruction and will be shut down".
Apple doesn't want their new phone to do that. THe idea that a badly written program can take down a network is clearly bollocks, but that doesn't mean there aren't perfectly good reasons for closing the platform. The other really important one is simply a matter of money.
Cellular networks really like lock-in. I've seen phones that have bluetooth that you can only receive from, not send anything. So if you want to send a picture you have to use MMS. This makes them money but pisses off anyone with a clue.
If apple can offer a service that people want to use that the networks can, theoretically, charge for, they're going to have a bargaining chip on their table, and by the looks of things the product isn't nearly finished enough for them to have finalised their negotiations with Cingular on this topic. In that sense cellular providers are complete bastards. I mean, did you see that guy at the Stevenote? i wouldn't have touched his hand with a bargepole let alone shook it.
Someone like apple entering a market for the first time isn't really in a position of power to release an open phone and go "fuck you" to the networks. The iPhone would cost almost as much as a iBook if it were unsibsidised - would you really pay £700 for a phone?
Handset manufacturers need the network providers muscle to get these phones thrown around like fashion statements, and as the market currently stands that's the game that apple is forced to play. If apple didn't do what the networks wanted then the iphone simply would not exist in the market - they need the subsidy.
We've got the luxury in europe (this time) of seeing what pans out with the iPhone technically. Also this quote "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us" from His Steveness kind of reaffirms the pay-for content idea being likely. Anything that gets onto the phone has to go through apple (officially). So look at the iTunes/iPod thing and take it from there - you'll be able to buy things for your phone through iTMS.
One thing that everyone on slashdot has to remember, always, and with everything, is that PEOPLE ARE DUMB. They don't understand stuff like whiting code and openness and all the principled stuff that gets griped about here. Apple is aiming the iPhone squarely at The Masses, and The Masses want a phone that works. Having all and sundry releasing software for the phone will jeopardise its stability and if the phone is seen as being an unstable piece of shit it won't sell. Smartphones are NOT mass-market devices, and apple is trying to MAKE them appealing to The Masses. So with that aim in mind and the fact that apple is obliged to do a deal with one network provider or another means that they has do do things the way a) the network providers want and b) in a way that's going to make them all money and c) will not jeopardise the end user experience of the phone, which