Monkey Island Creator Slams Corporate Control Over Game Publishing 298
An anonymous reader writes "Ron Gilbert, co-creator of classic games Maniac Mansion, Monkey Island 1 and 2, and many more, has spoken out against corporate censorship — the way of large companies getting a say on what does or does not get published on the distribution channels they control. Although his insightful rant applies to a number of corporations (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Comcast are mentioned), most of the direct examples single out Apple. Quoting: 'Apple has maintained an almost North Koreanish dictatorial control over the devices, becoming the arbitrator over what is good and bad, what is allowed and not allowed. They don't have this control over the Mac because it is a real computer and an open device, but they can do this with the iPhone because we (as consumers) were convinced by the cell phone carriers that they needed this control to protect their networks (in the same way they wouldn't let us own our own telephones in the '70s) and Apple was happy to jump on that ship because they could finally control everything that went on the device and we bought it into it. Apple apologists say that Apple needs this control to maintain the "specialness" of the device. I say that's a load of crap.'" He also mentions Adidas dropping out of iAds because they couldn't accept Apple's excessive creative control, and a photography app that was rejected because it used the volume buttons as trigger."
nothing left to lose. (Score:2, Interesting)
And we all see how android is filled with back doors and hemmoraging data. Moreover google is now back peddling and starting to lock things down. Sometime you want freedom sometime you want security. I'll take freedom on my desktop and security on my phone. why? because in the future the phone will be my credit card and for that I want something close to trusted plat form computing.
the good news is you have a choice. DOn't buy an iphone, get your freedom, and as the singer said, perhaps nothing left to lose.
Maybe not the best example. (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a volume button. I don't have a problem with Apple with rejecting an app that subverts the defined usage of a hardware button. I haven't used (or heard of) this app, but what does it do if you try to change the volume of your music or phone call when also trying to take a picture?
Someone finally gets it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rantfail (Score:3, Interesting)
The good news is that Apple is slowly relaxing its control, while Google is tightening theirs. Hopefully both will end up in the sweet spot, and we'll have ourselves some healthy competition.
Re:Maybe not the best example. (Score:4, Interesting)
None of those examples removed functionality from other applications.
Neither does the cited camera app. When you're using the camera, the button does one thing. When you're not using the camera, it does something else. Nothing has been removed. Things have only been added. The concept of using one button for multiple actions has been around for as long as computers have had buttons. This is especially prevalent with console games. When you're on one screen a certain button has a certain action, when you're doing something else that button does something completely different. It's all about context. People are in fact intelligent enough to figure this out. Yes, even Apple users.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speaking of microsoft... (Score:3, Interesting)
How many fart boob or "x-ray" apps do you need to see before you realise the Apple store is even more dire? At least xbox live restricts the trash to one "abandonded lot" out the back where no-one sees it. It's really hard to distinquish quality on the app store.