Guest Orangatang Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 What does your sponsor think of you telling everyone how to unlock the phone and install unsigned games that are probably better than theirs?
Guest Paul [MVP] Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 That's a bit of a rash comment isn't it! What makes you think any unsigned games are better than theirs? I've seen the screenshots for the forthcoming Speedway Jam, and it looks awesome! I think the sponsor will be pleased at the extra exposure their ad is getting from all the additional hits! P
Guest spacemonkey Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 I can't see that unlocking does anything harmful to games developers. It isn't going to make it any easier to pirate their software. All it does is open up more competition in the market which has to be good for everyone. Signed apps will still have a larger market as not everyone has an unsigned phone. Your not anti-competition are you? Hang about, isn't that what microsoft was accused of???
Guest Orangatang Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 Don't get me wrong, i'm all for competition, it's just if you can get stuff like quake and all the other games that have been developed over such a long period they're likely to be better than the 1st generation of SPV specific games - who'd by an spv game if a gameboy emulator appeared. Also, a lot of companies can go under if their first few products aren't received well. Plus, your sponsor probably isn't that impressed that after shelling out for all the developer stuff the market they think they may have cornered is suddenly open to everyone - which i'm all for. How soon before someone knocks up a GPRS counter, an explorer type program, some email software that allows you to send pictures thus circumventing the need for MMS (that would all be nice, that would also piss quite a few developers off). In short, i bet all these companies developing for the SPV are feeling a bit let down by orange and a bit miffed that orange seem to be backing down on the signing thing. Did that make sense? i kind of wrote half of it, did some work and then wrote the other half.
Guest spacemonkey Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 Certainly I agree. I imagine a hell of a lot of developers are pissed off about the mess that Orange has made of certification. Developers who have just chosen not to work on smartphone because they couldn't jump through the hoops are certainly pissed of. They've already invested a lot of time and money in developing games and yet can't port those games to a new platform (that would annoy me), but at least these guys have spent or lost any money on it. Imagine how annoyed companies with signed software out there must be. They invested cash into getting set up with authorised development kits and Orange certification in the hopes of making an absolute killing selling mediocre games and tools into a captive market, and still making huge sales because there was NO OTHER OPTION. And now part of their captive market may be dissappearing (I'd be ropeable). The real issue is that in the first place Orange (and Microsoft) thought that under the quise of security they were allowed to set up little monopolies on software development and deployment on a platform, not by excersizing their legal rights but by implementing technology. They further thought it would be ideal because they could create a development "elite" that could work closely with them and everyone would share in the profits, and really the only users would be those filthy communist GNU and LINUX and Freeware people anyway. Yes, the authorised developers should be annoyed, but the people they should be annoyed at are clearly Orange.
Guest DJHope Posted January 17, 2003 Report Posted January 17, 2003 "http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/enterprise/papers/security.asp" Take a look at that, "Malicious software Although Microsoft Windows Powered mobile devices have yet to become a significant target for malicious code, one may argue that it is only a matter of time. Even though the device itself may not be affected, its connection with a network may mean that it provides a transport for passing destructive software on to other computing systems." So even microsoft admit that nothing mobile has yet to become a significant target for malicious code AND they note that the main implication of malicious code is passing it on to other devices NOT bringing down any of the mobile operators network layer. DJ Hope
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now