clearly...

...the app.store is not as evil as some people make it out to be. Examples like Trism are probably the lower end of the spectrum, compared to all-time bestsellers, like Koi Pond.

Sure, there are some problems for some developers, and I'll be the first one to admit that Apple could be dealing with app store rejections better (much better), but by and large I see the app store as a very positive factor, that vastly benefits iPhone users and developers.

Overall, I see the rocks in the current road as FAR less than what other platforms throw in the roads of developers or users.

I am definitely...

in the wrong line of work.

Android

What's he talking about?

"Do I want to be spending six months to write the game, and another six months making it compatible? If I had Trism available for Android," says Demeter, "and there are 50 Android devices and every time one of them crashes [the users] contact me, do I want that?�

First, Android is an OS/platform. As such, you write to the OS, not the hardware. As such, you don't have to deal with 50 different versions of the software, or it working on only 20 devices.

Second, Android isn't even out, and I doubt he's used it much to know anything about it. Based on his comments, he's just interjecting some FUD into the equation. (If all this was a concern, no one would be making software for Windows, and all would be for the Mac, because there's just so many different PCs out there that can run Windows, so many things could go wrong!).

And, OMG, his software crashes and he doesn't want to be bothered? Heaven to mergatroid, Batman! Well, Trism is available on the iPhone and Touch. Is he OK to be bothered when the software crashes then? Or is it just that, since Android can run on various phones, then the problem must be the phone, not his software, so don't bother him!

h***, if you don't want to program for Android, or only want to do it for the iPhone, just say "I'm sticking to the iPhone!" and be done with it. Don't make up excuses.

re: app store

People don't claim the AppStore, as a place to buy software, to be evil. The "evil" is the appStore requirement, and that Apple holds the reins on what software can be offered and who can install it.

The fact that some people can make money (selling 50000 copies of a game) on the AppStore doesn't mean the decision to only allow the AppStore to offer apps was correct.

It just shows that an Apple-store that offers a veritable one-stop shopping place can allow someone to sell a lot without having to offer their own presence and payment plans. But no one doubted that. The iTMS is an example of such a thing (Apple sells a ton, even though there are options).

Its just some developers want options. And that Apple won't offer them. So they don't develop for the iPhone, which is their right, just as it is Apple's right to define the terms of which software can be developed for the iPhone (although a lot of those developers and many a user would argue Apple gives up that right once they sold the phone, but that's a whole different iPhone/xBox/PS3/Wii comparison argument).

Which, BTW, is the same right this developer has to decide not to create software for Android (which I'm also sure is causing rumblings all throughout the Android world - "There's going to be one less Tetris knock-off for Android! It's going to fail now for sure! Better just to sell off Google's assets and send the money to the stockholders!"

What he's talking about

@LouZer:You miss the point. Android looks to be a great OS - but the hardware platform is NOT standardized, meaning that developers do have to consider a myriad of options. Unlike the iPhone, or even PalmOS, there is no standard screen resolution, standard input method(s), minimum performance requirements, etc. So instead of knowing that a given title works as needed on a common reference platform, developers would have to design for multiple, and somehow allow the "lowest common denominator" to drive the usability on a given device. While perhaps limiting, I can certainly understand this decision - as it frees him/them to concentrate on making that gaming experience as good as possible, and not spending tons of time on edge-case bugs, due to differing hardware configurations.

Oh, and @testudo: Trism is FAR more than a "Tetris [or perhaps more correctly, Bejeweled] knock-off". It really is a great game, with very-unique gameplay, and immense re-playability. I was happy to see such a well-designed game going for a logical price ($5, as opposed to the $10 which many have standardized on), and still consider it the best purchase I've made from the App Store.

"It just shows that an Apple-store that offers a veritable one-stop shopping place can allow someone to sell a lot without having to offer their own presence and payment plans. But no one doubted that."

Actually Testy, you did. Check your prior posts on this issue. I, for one, am shocked that you could so openly be mendacious on this (or any other) topic.

Re: dimmer

Sorry, I never said the AppStore would fail miserably. Show me a post where I did. I've said it was lame to force all apps to have to go through the AppStore, to force any developer to pay Apple to post software on the AppStore and, in effect, if you want to make money, HAVE to share that profit with Apple. It's a money and control grab by Apple, plain and simple. But I never said "Oh, that AppStore is going to fail!".


Oh, and I was wrong on one count. He sold 71000 copies to make 250K.