or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › GamePop console to run iOS apps without using any Apple code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GamePop console to run iOS apps without using any Apple code - Page 2

post #41 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


So you're saying the game belongs to Apple and the developers shouldn't be allowed to sell it anywhere else? Sounds silly doesn't it? Just because the folks at Bluestacks were inventive enough to find a way of making it easy for the devs to reach a new audience, avoiding a complete re-code on their part, it's wrong?

Inventive might be overly flattering. But I agree that this is still a pretty deft feat, whether they are shut down legally or not and whether it is commercially viable. It's a shame that the folks herein have no appreciation for clever engineering. I realize there are few technically competent members here. But there are equally few folks who know the law or who are savvy businessmen. Yet they do not hesitate to opine on and argue the finer points of economics and lawsuits. Go figure.

post #42 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If they aren't using any code belonging to Apple why should Bluestacks be sued by Apple? .

Perhaps copyright violation. Copyright includes the right to distribute and broadcast content. Developers sign over these rights re: the iOS versions when they submit to the store. What Bluestacks is doing could be sign as distributing without the right to do so. Thus law suit

And it's highly unlikely that they could do this without using any code from Apple. No matter what they claim

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #43 of 118

I'm not a developer, and I don't write any apps, but aren't many iOS apps written using parts of Apple's code, such as accessing various API's? And aren't the apps made with Apple's software?

 

Maybe Apple can revise their developer contracts and make it clear that any iOS developer that offers their app for this emulation console is eligible to be banned for life from the Apple appstore. Where would you rather have your app? On the appstore, selling to hundreds of millions of iOS users, or on some niche emulation console, made by an unknown company, which will only sell in limited quantities, and to a small amount of users.

post #44 of 118

I think you guys are getting tripped up here by a bit of misinformation.

 

Take the word "iOS" out of the article.  

 

Then it becomes:

 

Developer makes game platform that will run android games and game written in objective-C. 

 

This isn't so radical is it?  Now it's just developers using XCode to make games for a game platform.  There's no reason to expect a lawsuit here.

 

Apple owns iOS.  This machine which "has no apple code" is obviously not running iOS. 

 

Someone making a game console that supports the objective-c runtime, and makes porting iOS apps to it relatively easy (especially games which don't use much of the iOS UI Anyway, and usually have their own UI) is no big deal. 

 

I believe that APIs themselves are not copyrightable, and at any rate, the Foundation and Appkit APIs have been emulated by GNUSTEP for about 2 decades now, so if Apple was going to sue, they already would have.

 

So, there's not much stopping someone from making a cocoa-like, objective-c runtime gaming console that makes it easy for iOS developers to port their games.

 

I think Apple probably won't even care.  Can't sweat the small stuff.

 

This is assuming the article is true and they aren't using any of Apple's software. 

post #45 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

FFS, you miss my point entirely with your spin.  It's not about the freedom of devs to have their apps/games run on multiple platforms, it's about whether it's legal for a company to leech off the work done by another company by emulating the technology they've created.

FWIW, I do create apps for iOS (as well as other platforms), so I'm well aware of the effort it takes to port apps.  I'm wholly supportive of anything which makes that easier.  I'm just not supportive of doing it at the expense of others because I also know how difficult it is to build something from scratch.

What do you mean "at the expense of others"?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Doesn't seem like they're tapping into anything Apple created.

 

Emulating how iOS works would constitute tapping in my books.  It certainly saves a lot of time and money over creating a platform from scratch.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #47 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


What do you mean "at the expense of others"?

 

The general lack of understanding this concept is exactly why so few tech companies actually bother innovating these days.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #48 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

 

Emulating how iOS works would constitute tapping in my books.  It certainly saves a lot of time and money over creating a platform from scratch.

 

Maybe in your books, but I'm not sure if method signatures can be patented...

post #49 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
Perhaps copyright violation. Copyright includes the right to distribute and broadcast content. Developers sign over these rights re: the iOS versions when they submit to the store.

 

This is not in the least bit true.  While the developer agreement is under NDA and I won't go into details, it is not as you described.  It gives Apple a license to *distribute* the software via the appstore.  The developers retain all copyrights.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Maybe Apple can revise their developer contracts and make it clear that any iOS developer that offers their app for this emulation console is eligible to be banned for life from the Apple appstore. 

 

Think about the implications of what you're proposing here.  If Apple were going to do that, they'd say you can't port your app to android.  There are many big name apps on both platforms.  People wouldn't like that at all, and Apple would look kinda silly if they did that.    Emulating Apple's APIs might be a legal grey area but it's not a slam dunk.  There's nothing that stops you from using Apple's tools -- Xcode, etc-- to make software for other platforms. 

post #50 of 118

How do you get the iOS applications onto the console exactly..?

post #51 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Emulating how iOS works would constitute tapping in my books.  It certainly saves a lot of time and money over creating a platform from scratch.

If some of you will do a little research outside of AI you may quickly discover you don't understand how the process works. If Apple were to sue I'll be surprised.

A quick link that explains what's going on a whole lot better is over at 9to5. Just replace the xxx with mac after the 5 in the link due to a silly AI grudge.

http://9to5xxx.com/2013/06/07/android-game-console-gamepop-does-the-unthinkable-brings-ios-games-to-tv-with-looking-glass/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 118
I see a "cease and desist" order in the future.
post #53 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
Emulating how iOS works would constitute tapping in my books.  It certainly saves a lot of time and money over creating a platform from scratch.

 

I think there's not enough detail to really debate this issue here.  You and your opponent are both projecting your own guesses onto what the announcement means and what they're doing and then reaching different conclusions. 

 

If they are copying that Apple UI and recreating iOS much the way samsung did, then they likely run afoul of apple patents.

 

If they're just providing a game console with an Objective-C and FoundationKit based API, then one would be hard pressed to say that they're ripping Apple off (especially since Objective-C is a language whose compilers are open source, Apple gives away Xcode for free with no restrictions on how you use it, and Apple has released foundationkit as open source.) 

post #54 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Do I really have to post the dancing image again? Stop playing stupid.

Because you have no clue. As long as the app isn't pirated or somehow obtained by circumventing the app store and Apple's revenue then what's the problem?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that you can't legally virtualise an OS without the permission of the OS owners.  It's not about who owns the code underneath the virtualisation, it's about being allowed to run the OS in that way at all.  
I wouldn't worry about it anyway as the device seems kinda crappy and it's aimed at a very tiny segment of the market (people who like iOS and the games but are somehow still needing a physical controller instead of using the on-screen controls).  In other words, mostly old-school gamers, people who rip off games and use emulators etc.  This is also a shrinking market segment, so even if it gets off the ground it won't last long. 

I suspect you are correct. I still have a an older version of VMWare Fusion somewhere that accidentally allowed any OS X version to run, not just OS X Server. VMWare fixed it and apologized in a day or two and explained Apple did not allow this.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #56 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

I expect a cease and desist letter is already on it's way.

No doubt. But if there's no legal risk they'll probably not comply.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #57 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

The general lack of understanding this concept is exactly why so few tech companies actually bother innovating these days.

So rather than tossing out riddles explain it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnbiasedDave View Post

 

Maybe in your books, but I'm not sure if method signatures can be patented...

 

We'll have to see how they've done it.  If they've actually created an Objective-C runtime and implemented API compatibility with iOS (similar to what Cocotron provides for Windows and Linux), then they'll have a case.  However, if they've just created a binary emulator, then, at very least, they'll be nailed with a number of iOS patent violations for duplicating functionality.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #59 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


So rather than tossing out riddles explain it.

 

Here you go...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

 

We'll have to see how they've done it.  If they've actually created an Objective-C runtime and implemented API compatibility with iOS (similar to what Cocotron provides for Windows and Linux), then they'll have a case.  However, if they've just created a binary emulator, then, at very least, they'll be nailed with a number of iOS patent violations.

 

You can't create something which duplicates the patented functionality of something else (via emulation or otherwise).

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #60 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

No doubt. But if there's no legal risk they'll probably not comply.

Is it worth fighting Apple in court with the billions it has? Sometimes lawsuits are used to drain the resources of the defendant to make them comply or settle. I'm not saying Apple would do this.
post #61 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

We'll have to see how they've done it.  If they've actually created an Objective-C runtime and implemented API compatibility with iOS (similar to what Cocotron provides for Windows and Linux), then they'll have a case.  However, if they've just created a binary emulator, then, at very least, they'll be nailed with a number of iOS patent violations for duplicating functionality.

"Sharma said that the company virtualizes the platforms on the applications programming interface level. If an app makes a call to a menu item within Apple’s platform, then it goes to an iOS library in order to draw the appropriate menu. Bluestacks intercepts the call and draws the menu instead.

This is possible, Sharma, said because the basic functions on iOS and Android have moved closer together. Both use the Open GL graphics protocol and both ARM-based processors."
http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/07/finally-finally-finally-bluestacks-will-let-you-play-apple-iphone-games-on-your-big-screen-tv/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

I think there's not enough detail to really debate this issue here.  You and your opponent are both projecting your own guesses onto what the announcement means and what they're doing and then reaching different conclusions. 

 

If they are copying that Apple UI and recreating iOS much the way samsung did, then they likely run afoul of apple patents.

 

If they're just providing a game console with an Objective-C and FoundationKit based API, then one would be hard pressed to say that they're ripping Apple off (especially since Objective-C is a language whose compilers are open source, Apple gives away Xcode for free with no restrictions on how you use it, and Apple has released foundationkit as open source.) 

 

I mentioned the Cocotron project as an example of the latter (Obj-C runtime, APIs, developer tools).  However, having watched that project struggle to keep up with new APIs and technologies added to OS X/Obj-C (blocks/GCD, for example) over a period of 10+ years, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that a newcomer to the scene pulled such magic out of a hat.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #63 of 118

Yeah, they're in the clear.  It's important to remember this is a gaming console.  Games create their own UIs.  The APIs that games interface with are primarily OpenGL and wrappers around it.  OpenGL is an open API, and making your own wrapper would be easy.

 

Most of the "iOS" APIs that these games would need to hit are part of foundation and the graphics subsystem.  Foundation is open sourced already, and the graphics are basically built on OpenGL. 

 

It wouldn't be too hard to make an "apple-like" platform that makes PORTING games from iOS (note it's not "emulation" but porting) that does not run afoul of any of Apple's rights.

 

In fact it would be generally relatively easy given the industries reliance on OpenGL. 

 

There's no smoke here.  Just a bit of a hair trigger to assume that Apple's rights are being violated.  They aren't.... at least if the system works as GamePop describes.

post #64 of 118
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Because you have no clue. As long as the app isn't pirated or somehow obtained by circumventing the app store and Apple's revenue then what's the problem?

 

So you see absolutely no problem in just taking Apple's code and making it work where they explicitly tell you it's not allowed to work.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #65 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
I mentioned the Cocotron project as an example of the latter (Obj-C runtime, APIs, developer tools).  However, having watched that project struggle to keep up with new APIs and technologies added to OS X/Obj-C (blocks/GCD, for example) over a period of 10+ years, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that a newcomer to the scene pulled such magic out of a hat.

 

Cocoatron is emulating Cocoa.  Cocoa is really under Apple's control and it's hard for a volunteer effort of open source people to maintain API compatibility.

 

But it's not very relevant to this issue because games are written using OpenGL and other graphics subsystems most of which are open source, or thin wrappers around standard APIs.

 

The problem is orders of magnitude less difficult.

 

IF they were building a mobile phone that replicated the cocoa APIs it would be pretty hard.  But providing a platform that iOS GAMES can be ported to easily is a much easier problem. 

post #66 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
So you see absolutely no problem in just taking Apple's code and making it work where they explicitly tell you it's not allowed to work.

 

There's no evidence that anybody is using Apple's code here, quite the opposite.   Their explanation of what they're doing is completely plausible and makes no use of Apple IP. 

post #67 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


"Sharma said that the company virtualizes the platforms on the applications programming interface level. If an app makes a call to a menu item within Apple’s platform, then it goes to an iOS library in order to draw the appropriate menu. Bluestacks intercepts the call and draws the menu instead.

 

Yes, and so it very much sounds like an emulator.  If it's solely OpenGL calls they are emulating, then it's not a problem because OpenGL is a cross-platform technology.  It's if/when they emulate patented iOS functionality that it becomes illegal.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #68 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Yes, and so it very much sounds like an emulator.  If it's solely OpenGL calls they are emulating, then it's not a problem because OpenGL is a cross-platform technology.  It's if/when they emulate patented iOS functionality that it becomes illegal.

 

It's not an emulator.  It's a platform with an API designed to make it easy to port iOS Apps to.  The operative word (you seem to have missed) is PORT. 

 

It's a shame the article makes it seem like this thing will just run iOS apps out of the box.  But it isn't true.  This isn't even close to what GamePop is saying. 

 

So you're beating a dead horse.

post #69 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

But it's not very relevant to this issue because games are written using OpenGL and other graphics subsystems most of which are open source, or thin wrappers around standard APIs.

 

The problem is orders of magnitude less difficult.

 

IF they were building a mobile phone that replicated the cocoa APIs it would be pretty hard.  But providing a platform that iOS GAMES can be ported to easily is a much easier problem. 

 

Graphics are only one small part of a game, and that's all OpenGL provides.  There's also audio, networking, input handling, etc.  It's a minefield of potential patent violations emulating all of this identical to iOS.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #70 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Here you go...


You can't create something which duplicates the patented functionality of something else (via emulation or otherwise).

Then why do all those emulators exist. I have to yet see one get taken down.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #71 of 118
...at least the horse is already dead.1hmm.gif Eventually the crowd is sure to notice.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 118

Perhaps it's like Wine (or Darwine) that mimics Windows' API to run Windows apps?

post #73 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

 

It's not an emulator.  It's a platform with an API designed to make it easy to port iOS Apps to.  The operative word (you seem to have missed) is PORT. 

 

It's a shame the article makes it seem like this thing will just run iOS apps out of the box.  But it isn't true.  This isn't even close to what GamePop is saying. 

 

So you're beating a dead horse.

 

You yourself said we don't know really how they've done it, so why are you now implying that you somehow know for certain it's not an emulator?

 

From the article on AllThingsD, it certainly sounds like an emulator:

 

"Sharma said that BlueStacks was careful not to use any Apple code. It takes the developer’s apps and runs them using its emulation software."

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #74 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you see absolutely no problem in just taking Apple's code and making it work where they explicitly tell you it's not allowed to work.

What part of "without using any Apple code" didn't you understand?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #75 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Then why do all those emulators exist. I have to yet see one get taken down.

 

Show me one which has been turned into a commercial product without obtaining legal rights.  I'm not talking about virtualization software like VMWare (which requires a real OS install to do anything useful), I'm talking about a true platform emulator.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #76 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Is it worth fighting Apple in court with the billions it has? Sometimes lawsuits are used to drain the resources of the defendant to make them comply or settle. I'm not saying Apple would do this.

EDIT: Didn't stop Psystar from trying. Or ProView. (LOL, typo fail)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #77 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Graphics are only one small part of a game, and that's all OpenGL provides.  There's also audio, networking, input handling, etc.  It's a minefield of potential patent violations emulating all of this identical to iOS.

If it gets the same results but does it differently then it's not in violation.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 118

Sure you can.  The Google Android vs. Oracle lawsuit pretty much settled it - API's are not copyrightable.

 

Of course, Oracle has appealed, but I don't think they're going to get much traction.

post #79 of 118

Hi all,

 

Lots of good questions and concerns here. I'll see if I can answer a few of them for you:

1) We definitely aren't just taking games from the App Store and making them work. We have lots of developer partnerships already formed and will be announcing games that come straight from the developers. Every developer will make money. As mentioned in previous articles, we split subscription revenue with developers and developers keep all IAP.

 

2) Many games work with no modifications needed from developers. If there is IAP present, the developer will need to add a 3rd party SDK to handle payments and then it's ready to go.

 

3) Outside of potentially adding a payment SDK, then there is no work needed by a developer. We (our engineering team) builds all of the controls and does the key mapping internally. This is to ensure there is no lag time (even 5ms lag is a game destroyer in Fruit Ninja) and that developers can focus on building great games.

 

4) GamePop is not geared towards the XBOX One/PS4 crowd. Sure, some people will want both, but there is a massive trend happening right now where the younger generation is all about playing mobile games. Most kids ask why they can't play Angry Birds on a bigger screen - and why shouldn't they be able to? It's not often reported, but the hard-core gaming generation is shrinking as more and more people shift to casual gaming. The graphics on these games are such high DPI and quality that they look beautiful on screen.

 

5) We'll be announcing controller design soon. It truly is next-gen stuff in that it just feels natural to use it.

 

6) Users will be able to see all 500 games at launch on their screen, both iOS and Android.

 

If you have other questions, I'll try to answer but I'm hopping around articles answering comments so it might take a minute ;)

 

- Ben from BlueStacks

post #80 of 118

Just to point something out that the non-developers here might not know about...

 

Oracle sued Google for Android because Google recreated the Java API with it's own code in Android.  Oracle lost the case, but it has been appealed. Still, it doesn't look good for Oracle as the the EFF, courts, and computer scientist are siding with Google.  The precedence seems to be saying that the API cannot be copyrighted only the code that powers the API.  

 

The catch is Java is open source and iOS is not.  So does the precedence apply?  Is the iOS API copyrighted or only the code that powers it?

 

BlueStacks is clearly counting on the precedence set in the Oracle v. Google case to protect them. This product would have taken YEARS to develop, so there is no way this is new.  They've just been waiting for the right time.  BlueStacks probably feels with everything leaning in Google's favor against Oracle, they can afford to risk it.  

 

Personally, I think BlueStacks is taking a HUGE risk.  Going to be really interesting to see what happens.

 

P.S.  Just noticed many here are assuming APIs in iOS are copyrighted, and that is the very heart of the issue in Google v. Oracle.  The courts seem to have decided that NO, APIs are not copyrighted.  Only the code that makes them work is.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › GamePop console to run iOS apps without using any Apple code