We're taking Wikipedia as the only definition of what a game is now?

I guess my response ought to be that dictionary.reference.com defines a game as "1. an amusement or pastime", and that therefore your definition is invalid.

I could list games that lack some or all of those elements, and you'd probably just define them as non-games, so what's the point? I disagree with the definition of loss avoidance as a victory condition as well - because you never reach a state where you have attained the victory condition. The one feature that I'd personally say is [b]absolutely[/b] mandatory for a game from your list of four elements is interaction. But then, since we've decided that Wikipedia is the arbiter of all things game-related, I'd have to see the entry on zero-player games and query whether, for example, Progress Quest can be counted as a game. Probably also rules, although there are plenty of games where the rules are emergent from a very small initial set (Nomic and its derivatives, which [b]also[/b] typically start with no goals, and may continue without them pretty much through to the end in some cases).

You've certainly moved the goalposts, of course. Victory conditions are not the only type of goals, and score systems are not the only type of challenge. As a result you're not even actually disagreeing with my original point - you don't need victory conditions or score systems even to fulfill your definition of a game as including goals, rules, challenge and interaction.

Why on earth does a game need victory conditions? There are a vast number of games (including, of course, Tetris) that don't have them. There are a huge number that don't have score either. And there are plenty of games that don't really have either.

But he did say "What's a network?"

I'd prefer them to fight to the death on the quality of their products, not shitty overstretched patents that don't do the end user any good.

Apple, however, have clearly decided they're not capable of doing that any more.

No, it isn't. A lack of belief in God(s) is weak atheism. A belief in the lack of God(s) is strong atheism. Agnosticism isn't a lack of belief - it's a belief that the existence of God(s) is unknown and/or unknowable.

I've always been amazed that anyone could default to anything other than agnosticism and weak atheism...

'Mindreading' isn't really the right word for the discovery that what the device does is what you wanted it to do - and if it isn't what you [b]thought[/b] you wanted to do, then you were wrong.

In what way is this different to any other form of extorting money with menaces?

"Nice mobile phone business you've got here. Would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

That's kind of Sony's fault, though, isn't it? I was a big fan of theirs back in the day, but since they've been so anti-consumer and... well, straight out evil, that they give Microsoft and Apple a run for their money.

</troll>

But that's kind of the point. Samsung's devices are ripoffs of Apple's to that same extent.

We're hardcore Doctor Who fans. We have no life to get on with.

Loads of people here care about the Android sources being available. Personally I work with the Android source, and need it available to me where possible. But for people who don't, many of them still want to be able to use Cyanogenmod or other ROMs developed from the source. Even if they don't see it personally, they can get benefit from it.

I wrote a touch-typing tutor on those, and that was about 25 years ago too. :(

Seems like it's still available to download online. Not that I'd recommend learning to type on an emulated BBC Micro program written by a GCSE student, but it's nice to know it's still out there...

The lack of BBC Micros - or something similar - has been a kick in the teeth for learning to program for many many years, IMO. When I was at primary school I taught myself to code on a ZX80, then progressed to the BBC Micro. By the time I was in my last couple of years there I was writing educational games in a combination of BASIC and Assembler for the kids in the lower classes to play. These days there isn't that ability to jump right in and start simple coding on most platforms. :(

Enter the music business under a different brand name, so that you're not stepping on someone else's trademark? Come to an agreement with the holder of that trademark?

Certain types of application don't give you the choice to 'do things the Android way', of course, Games being one as you point out.

When you've got a pre-agreed range of devices to work on, 'not supporting that device' isn't an option either. For hobbyists, sure you can go that way. For professionals, not always.

Sure, in a lot of cases people don't need to have the full range of devices. But to claim that they're never required before checking up on what the actual dev work is is just a little irrational in my opinion. But then, I'm speaking as someone who does work under these constraints and does find it vitally important to be able to test across a large range of devices.