Comment Re:"Gaming" (Score 1) 172
Just like it would make more sense to not use platforms who's policies you don't agree with than complain about it?
Just like it would make more sense to not use platforms who's policies you don't agree with than complain about it?
And yet, no one is forcing you to use Apple products.
And really, if Google did any of the stuff you're talking about, they'd have the FTC on their ass even harder than they did.
You're not required to use Apple. The game is fully available on Android.
It is, actually. You can download the APK from their site, as well as from the Google Play store.
They're not entitled to make money.
Except that mobile apps are much more likely to reach people than the web.
So fucking what? An editorial ran in the New York Times is much more likely to reach people than something written on my self hosted blog or my small town newspaper. Does that mean the NYT should be obligated to carry my writing?
Telling developers to just write web apps is telling them to wait in line while the VIPs get to just walk past.
Not anyone's problem but their own.
That is NOT CENSORSHIP.
They are NOT OBLIGATED to cater to your whims.
So how should one make a 3D web game that Apple can't censor?
Who says you should be able to? If you're that afraid of "being censored", then release on a different platform. You are NOT entitled to a platform supporting your stuff.
It's hard for most to understand the harm of having a corporation, a single entity decide what's acceptable.
But, they don't. I went onto the Google Play store just now, and the game was available. I didn't download it, because I had no interest, but if I wanted to, I had full access.
The developer has even put the APK up on their site for download.
Pretty hard to beat that kind of access.
You can reach a lot of people through Apple apps.
And I could reach a lot of people through writing something in the New York Times, or by selling something at WalMart. Doesn't mean either of those parties are obligated to carry my stuff.
Couple the difficulty of grasping this concept with the difficulty of knowing that there's harm being done in the first place and who can you expect to take the right actions except only the smartest?
There isn't harm being done if there was never an obligation to carry the thing in the first place. Their app is still available on other platforms, and there are still the PC and Mac platforms available if they want to reach a wider market.
No, and quite frankly, I don't care to. It's a purely retarded argument.
Although I could point to the Google Play store, which doesn't have those restrictions, and show how they've paid out far, far, far less than Apple has to developers.
Many of us quite frankly do not give two shits about pure "Free Markets".
App success is PRIMARILY based on NOT getting rejected by Apple first.
95% of apps get through the approval process with little or no incident. The "dangers of rejection" are seriously over-hyped by anti-Apple fanboys.
Anywhere that will have them. The Internet, for one. They have also made an Android version.
That's completely beside the point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Congress has made no law restricting the publication of a work. However, the people at Apple are NOT Congress, and are therefore not bound by the same restrictions. Just like you're not required to buy an iOS device.
Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.
The 1st Amendment says that you can say it. It doesn't say you have to have a platform to do so on.
Besides, they've also put the game out on Android. So it's still available.
Yeah! You COULD sell a bajillion copies! If they don't hamstring you and waste all your time and money.
95% of apps are approved with little or no incident, and in a timely manner. This idea that they're going to hamstring you is quite outdated.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
