Sprint has, for years, used a different type of CDMA than Verizon
Wikipedia's article about Sprint mentions that Sprint uses "1xRTT" and "EVDO", which I know are parts of CDMA2000. How exactly does Sprint's implementation differ from that of Verizon other than by being on different frequency bands?
Which map lets you access live traffic data offline?
The FM radio app, perhaps?
just leave a way to sideload, and all is golden.
Publishers see "just leave a way to run illegal copies, and all is golden."
the point is to build up the desirability of the console, so that AAA game studios have incentive to target the platform.
On the other hand, perhaps some AAA publishers don't want to share a platform with "the riff-raff" for fear of their products being lost among the me-too knockoffs that flood both Google Play Store and Apple's App Store. Case in point: Try searching these stores for "Flappy" and seeing which games other than dB-Soft's show up.
Try redesigning a first person shooter for a touch screen. Every touch-screen FPS I have tried is beyond terrible, requiring tons of aim assist and alteration of game mechanics to suit the reduction in player control.
Fans of mobile gaming would claim that "alteration of game mechanics" is the best course of action in this case. Developers had to alter game mechanics when porting shooters from the PC to the PSP; why should mobile be different? For example, a mobile FPS might be reimagined as a fixed shooter (like Duck Hunt) or a rail shooter (like Area 51).
Removing content or mechanics to suit an unsuitable control scheme is not "redesigning" anything, it's crippling it.
Consider what would have to be removed to port something like StarCraft to a PSP, which has no good mouse substitute.
If you put a huge ass list of silly secret handshakes involving dancing while naked and slathered in peanut butter-- JUST to get the SDK for your platforms-- NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND THAT ISNT A PEANUT BUTTER NUDE DANCING FETISHIST IS GOING TO DEVELOP FOR YOUR PLATFORMS
I guess the console makers' rationale is that if a developer has the resources to work around "absurd" requirements to get an SDK, it's more likely to have the resources to make a game that's better than Action 52. Perhaps you don't remember the crapfest that was the Atari 2600 library in 1983-1984, but it nearly brought down video gaming entirely in North America. Being selective about who is allowed to develop for a platform is console makers' way of ensuring "better quality gameplay, and all that ball of wax." That said, Sony has reportedly dramatically loosened up who's allowed to develop for PS4 and PS Vita; searching the web for "Pub Fund" will pull up articles about its recent indie developer outreach efforts.
[Android] IS FREE TO DEVELOP FOR, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS AN APP FOR FUCKING EVERYTHING.
Including an app for stealing users' personal information. Whenever mobile malware makes the news, it's almost always on Android, not iOS, and not the game consoles (except for "taihen" and "r0mloader" way back in the early DS homebrew days).
If a game can be designed/redesigned for a touch-screen interface, great.
Some people would claim that all worthwhile games can be "redesigned for a touch-screen interface". For example, one could redesign a platformer by removing the exploration element, resulting in Canabalt or Rayman Jungle Run.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.