Nothing stupid about it. There are people that will never buy a movie or an app and saying that studios or devs lost money doesn't change much.
Are you really so much of a cheapskate that you wouldn't spend a buck on some mobile entertainment? Here's a crazy idea: If you will never buy it, then do without. Amazing, isn't it? "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is often a BS justification by selfish asshats when they pirate, and how many actually buy a legit copy if they like it? Very few. We're not talking about a $1,000 software package here. We're talking about something that costs less than the amount most people have in their chump change pocket.
What really blows my mind is the sheer number of pirated apps on mobile phones. You see, something like Photoshop I can understand. It's expensive. Most people pirating it would never have been able to justify the purchase as they only want to play around. Adobe probably isn't losing much.
But mobile apps? This many people pirate something that costs $.99? How the hell can they justify that? It's cheap. Really cheap. Buy it or do without, or deal with ads. Criminy.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
Nothing stupid about it. There are people that will never buy a movie or an app and saying that studios or devs lost money doesn't change much.
I'm not saying that simply saying "hey some dev lost money because someone stole their app" is going to change anything. In fact I'm advocating the opposite, which is to actually hold those individuals accountable. What you originally said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
That's the same like saying just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money. They showed by downloading that they are not willing to pay. Same here.
So "just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money." which you then state that because they downloaded it they are unwilling to pay for it. So that means movie studios didn't lose out on a sale? That is what you implied and that is the most common illogic when it comes to people thinking about intangible products. As I said before, they absolutely have the right to be unwilling to pay $.99 for an app. However when they use that app, without paying for it, the developer absolutely lost out on that $.99 regardless of that persons willingness to pay. I'm unwilling to pay half a million dollar for a car (mostly because I'm also unable to pay that), that doesn't mean if I go steal a SLR McLaren that they didn't lose money because I wasn't willing to pay for it anyway.
The point is that most intellectual property theft is committed by people who wouldn't normally have the means to perpetrate the crime. The "willingness to pay" is not an on or off mechanism and it is also not the same between individuals. This is why there is a market, as well as why a dutch auction works. The problem is more an ease of theft vs consequence than it is a willingness to pay issue.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
That's why we have Photoshop Elements and the like. It's certainly a good idea for devs to try and mitigate that sort of thing with a tiered model. Maybe not something just like this, but something in that vein. Then again, I think Adobe knows that there are enough shops/pros/etc out there who will buy their software at that price (bad idea to run a business off of pirated software...) that they don't really need to adopt that kind of model.
Similarly, devs for mobile apps should certainly offer some sort of demo/lite version/ad-supported version/etc to let people try it out, but that's only going to do so much.
Game runs and connects to GC with PlayAccount1. But at the same time it also checks to make sure PurchaseAccount actually bought the game. If it doesn't check out, it blocks GC.
While it?s tempting to a frustrated developer to suggest Apple such an idea, Apple is wise NOT to use Game Center for anything else outside its core functionality. Reasons:
1. Game Center is an optional component and must remain optional. No one is forced to sign in, and this can?t be avoided because otherwise games won?t have offline mode. Yes, you can limit multiplayer part of your game to operate under Game Center, but putting dependency on app store connection will add time overhead to start playing. In other words: logging into GC is fast, but establishing connection to the app store to check transaction history - action that might require entering user account password again - is way too much for an average mobile gamer to swallow.
2. There?s already more robust anti-piracy check through in-app purchase mechanism : deploy your game as a free version in unlock full potential via in-app purchase. In order to restore full game on other device the user will have to allow the app to check if it?s been purchased.
I believe Apple is fighting piracy by making jailbreaking less and less appealing. Many casual pirates who pirated just because it was convenient enough won?t do it again if piracy wasn?t the main purpose of jailbreaking for them in the first place I believe this was the most successful anti-piracy strategy to date.
I don't think you understand what was originally posted.
The "simple 3 lines of code" check that was suggested is something along the lines of:
if (x != y) {
piratedCopy();
}
I'm saying that it is a trivial process to update the binary itself so that "y" is whatever you need it to be.
Does that mean that there are not other options? Absolutely not. I'm saying that it ultimately is not as simple as doing a basic comparison to take action against pirated apps.
Not really, I think he had it closer to what I intended than yourself. I was thinking more along the lines of:
Checksum the binary
Phone home with the checksum
Allow the remote server to sent a result back to say if it's valid or not
continue appropriately
So it's not so simple as trivial as you say, because neither the value of the checksum, or it's validity is held within the binary. Trying to bypass the code that is executed based on the result cannot be done without changing the code, it's not a simple hex edit to alter a value
no I'm not. Apple's implementation at present does not work. the jailbroken phones + cracked apps bypass the iTunes copy-protection scheme. It ends up running like a perfectly legitimate app.
Your comment is trollish at best.
The game center could have access to your purchase list. If you try to connect with a game that is not in your purchase list, then you would be denied access. This is not in place at the moment, but it is the realms of something that could be developed. Other solutions including a watermark in the binary that includes you customer ID and a corresponding unique signature that the server could then check.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
They do, it's called Adobe Elements. The photoshop elements & Premier Elements package is $119. The fact that you seem to think that "paper manuals or support" is why Adobe charges $2600 for their Creative Suite Master Collection shows to me that you are really out of touch with reality. I also find it funny that you think CS is "for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.". I know many professional individuals that use Photoshop CS5. But you are right on one thing, Adobe does not expect an individual home user to spend $2600 for CSMC, They also don't expect you to use it. Thats why they are referred to a "Professional" products. They are intended to be used in a profession that is able to use a $2600 tool to make money. Should Ford sell you an F350 for $12,000 because you are an individual home user? No, but they do have a Ranger that is closer to that price range if you want a "home user" grade truck.
I'd rather have Apple focused on preventing piracy in general, versus wasting too much time on Game Center. Someone wouldn't pay $0.99 for your app, but they would pay $0.99 if they were forced to in order to use your game with the Game Center leaderboards. Seriously?! I really doubt Game Center is that important to most people.
Here's an idea for GAMEized: try making a game worth buying, not some Paper Toss clone with different graphics. Your business plan appears to involve copying popular games to create generic game "engines" that can be customized to your clients' preferences. But in the end, most people aren't going to pay $0.99 just to flick a soccer ball instead of flicking a paper wad for free.
After years of cat and mouse DRM games, the most effective anti-piracy measure seems to be producing a product people want at a price they're willing to pay.
Dude, I know you like to comment, but you should stick to things where you know the facts.
I dunno, but this is a perfectly reasonable assertion to me:
Quote:
If jail-breaking ceases to be something that is required for legal purposes like network unlocking, and is primarily used for illegal purposes such as game piracy, the exception may not be renewed.
They just need to check the AppleID as it logs into Game Centre and see if the game was purchased by that account. If it wasn't then don't allow them to access it in Game Centre.
I would have assumed they were already doing this since Game Centre seems to know what apps I have, but I guess it's just checking what's present on the device at the moment.
Why would you assume this? There is no requirement that the Apple ID used to purchase an app an the Game Center ID be the same - plenty of legitimate reasons for this have been cited in the thread already.
Since jail-breaking is legal, Apple cannot stop it.
Er, let's cut down on the hyperbole a little OK?
Apple can't pursue legal action against those who make jailbreaks available, but they can certainly stop it. All they have to do is tighten up their code (i.e. the iOS 4.3.4 update that is pending).
For some extra expense, Apple could certainly make jailbreaking impractical. Not impossible, but they could certainly raise the bar to something that only a few with specialized tools could do. If enough crap like rampant piracy continues, it could motivate Apple to take those steps. Our costs would go up, flexibility in the devices would be removed - all because a few assholes with no morals and infinite ability to rationalize bad behavior act poorly.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
tethered jail-breaks particularly are hard to completely stop.
Not hard, just not worth the effort - so far. There are multiple techniques that Apple could use, but they drive up manufacturing and engineering costs. They can never 100% protect something that someone has physical access to - but they can make it impractical for all but the most skilled/determined. It just depends on where the tipping point it. So far it's still in the "Apathy" zone from Apple's perspective, but if people are people and the number of asshole pirates keeps increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if at sometime Apple really raises the bar.
That's the same like saying just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money. They showed by downloading that they are not willing to pay.
If your not willing to pay, you have no right to the app and you are stealing.
Same as with movies.
Whether or not people are "willing" is immaterial. If you don't like that something costs money, your only recourse is to not use and and do something else. Not blatantly thieve and then rationalize the blatant theft away.
Sheesh... and people wonder why our economy is tanking?
Possibly, I can say this: among the people I know personally who jailbreak (5) not a single one of them did so to pirate apps, maybe it's an age thing, my group is late 20s and early 30s.
Fine - but if Apple were to deploy a 100% foolproof block for jailbreaking tomorrow - oh well! It's their right.
Personally I don't care one way or the other. I was going to jailbreak for wifi sync and a few other goodies, but iOS 5 will finally address those. So now I don't have to worry about it - and the biggest reason I love my iPhone and iPad will be preserved: the appliance-like experience. I have no problem tweaking the hell out of my Windows and Mac machines, but I like that the integrated environment for iOS devices yields the most stable and problem free devices I have owned for what are basically pocket computers.
I also have no problem with jailbreakers - for now. But if the jailbreak community starts doing stuff that dissuades developers, then I will be all for Apple slamming the door shut. If you don't agree, then have fun with Android, Palm or one of the $99 linux devices... that's what great about choice!
But mobile apps? This many people pirate something that costs $.99? How the hell can they justify that? It's cheap. Really cheap. Buy it or do without, or deal with ads. Criminy.
People are assholes and their ability to rationalize is incredible.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
That's why you can rent it now.
And yet the majority of people are still probably pirating it or lying about being students
Face it, pirates are assholes. Like drug addicts, they will rationalize and come up with a million reasons why their bad behavior isn't bad or is at least neutral (Well, I wasn't going to buy it anyway therefor they really aren't out anything anyway and your just being a dick for calling me a thief!).
It's still theft and it's still wrong. If you don't like the cost of something, go create your own alternative. There is no moral imperative to use someone else's stuff for free just because you don't agree with their wishes.
Comments
Nothing stupid about it. There are people that will never buy a movie or an app and saying that studios or devs lost money doesn't change much.
Are you really so much of a cheapskate that you wouldn't spend a buck on some mobile entertainment? Here's a crazy idea: If you will never buy it, then do without. Amazing, isn't it? "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is often a BS justification by selfish asshats when they pirate, and how many actually buy a legit copy if they like it? Very few. We're not talking about a $1,000 software package here. We're talking about something that costs less than the amount most people have in their chump change pocket.
What really blows my mind is the sheer number of pirated apps on mobile phones. You see, something like Photoshop I can understand. It's expensive. Most people pirating it would never have been able to justify the purchase as they only want to play around. Adobe probably isn't losing much.
But mobile apps? This many people pirate something that costs $.99? How the hell can they justify that? It's cheap. Really cheap. Buy it or do without, or deal with ads. Criminy.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
Nothing stupid about it. There are people that will never buy a movie or an app and saying that studios or devs lost money doesn't change much.
I'm not saying that simply saying "hey some dev lost money because someone stole their app" is going to change anything. In fact I'm advocating the opposite, which is to actually hold those individuals accountable. What you originally said was:
That's the same like saying just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money. They showed by downloading that they are not willing to pay. Same here.
So "just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money." which you then state that because they downloaded it they are unwilling to pay for it. So that means movie studios didn't lose out on a sale? That is what you implied and that is the most common illogic when it comes to people thinking about intangible products. As I said before, they absolutely have the right to be unwilling to pay $.99 for an app. However when they use that app, without paying for it, the developer absolutely lost out on that $.99 regardless of that persons willingness to pay. I'm unwilling to pay half a million dollar for a car (mostly because I'm also unable to pay that), that doesn't mean if I go steal a SLR McLaren that they didn't lose money because I wasn't willing to pay for it anyway.
The point is that most intellectual property theft is committed by people who wouldn't normally have the means to perpetrate the crime. The "willingness to pay" is not an on or off mechanism and it is also not the same between individuals. This is why there is a market, as well as why a dutch auction works. The problem is more an ease of theft vs consequence than it is a willingness to pay issue.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
That's why we have Photoshop Elements and the like. It's certainly a good idea for devs to try and mitigate that sort of thing with a tiered model. Maybe not something just like this, but something in that vein. Then again, I think Adobe knows that there are enough shops/pros/etc out there who will buy their software at that price (bad idea to run a business off of pirated software...) that they don't really need to adopt that kind of model.
Similarly, devs for mobile apps should certainly offer some sort of demo/lite version/ad-supported version/etc to let people try it out, but that's only going to do so much.
Game runs and connects to GC with PlayAccount1. But at the same time it also checks to make sure PurchaseAccount actually bought the game. If it doesn't check out, it blocks GC.
While it?s tempting to a frustrated developer to suggest Apple such an idea, Apple is wise NOT to use Game Center for anything else outside its core functionality. Reasons:
1. Game Center is an optional component and must remain optional. No one is forced to sign in, and this can?t be avoided because otherwise games won?t have offline mode. Yes, you can limit multiplayer part of your game to operate under Game Center, but putting dependency on app store connection will add time overhead to start playing. In other words: logging into GC is fast, but establishing connection to the app store to check transaction history - action that might require entering user account password again - is way too much for an average mobile gamer to swallow.
2. There?s already more robust anti-piracy check through in-app purchase mechanism : deploy your game as a free version in unlock full potential via in-app purchase. In order to restore full game on other device the user will have to allow the app to check if it?s been purchased.
I believe Apple is fighting piracy by making jailbreaking less and less appealing. Many casual pirates who pirated just because it was convenient enough won?t do it again if piracy wasn?t the main purpose of jailbreaking for them in the first place I believe this was the most successful anti-piracy strategy to date.
I don't think you understand what was originally posted.
The "simple 3 lines of code" check that was suggested is something along the lines of:
if (x != y) {
piratedCopy();
}
I'm saying that it is a trivial process to update the binary itself so that "y" is whatever you need it to be.
Does that mean that there are not other options? Absolutely not. I'm saying that it ultimately is not as simple as doing a basic comparison to take action against pirated apps.
Not really, I think he had it closer to what I intended than yourself. I was thinking more along the lines of:
Checksum the binary
Phone home with the checksum
Allow the remote server to sent a result back to say if it's valid or not
continue appropriately
So it's not so simple as trivial as you say, because neither the value of the checksum, or it's validity is held within the binary. Trying to bypass the code that is executed based on the result cannot be done without changing the code, it's not a simple hex edit to alter a value
no I'm not. Apple's implementation at present does not work. the jailbroken phones + cracked apps bypass the iTunes copy-protection scheme. It ends up running like a perfectly legitimate app.
Your comment is trollish at best.
The game center could have access to your purchase list. If you try to connect with a game that is not in your purchase list, then you would be denied access. This is not in place at the moment, but it is the realms of something that could be developed. Other solutions including a watermark in the binary that includes you customer ID and a corresponding unique signature that the server could then check.
more companies should have tiered pricing - realsoftware for example - one price for download only including license - additional fee if you want media - additional fee if you want printed manual - additional fee if you want support. - of course in the case of Adobe that could get excessively complicated - though I do wonder if they would have twice as many folks paying full price if full price was only half as much as it is now.
Don't forget though - that in cases such as Adobe Creative Suite - they do not expect individual home users to spend $2000+ - that is for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
They do, it's called Adobe Elements. The photoshop elements & Premier Elements package is $119. The fact that you seem to think that "paper manuals or support" is why Adobe charges $2600 for their Creative Suite Master Collection shows to me that you are really out of touch with reality. I also find it funny that you think CS is "for businesses who have no choice if they want to run their business and who have deeper pockets and can us it as a tax deduction.". I know many professional individuals that use Photoshop CS5. But you are right on one thing, Adobe does not expect an individual home user to spend $2600 for CSMC, They also don't expect you to use it. Thats why they are referred to a "Professional" products. They are intended to be used in a profession that is able to use a $2600 tool to make money. Should Ford sell you an F350 for $12,000 because you are an individual home user? No, but they do have a Ranger that is closer to that price range if you want a "home user" grade truck.
Here's an idea for GAMEized: try making a game worth buying, not some Paper Toss clone with different graphics. Your business plan appears to involve copying popular games to create generic game "engines" that can be customized to your clients' preferences. But in the end, most people aren't going to pay $0.99 just to flick a soccer ball instead of flicking a paper wad for free.
After years of cat and mouse DRM games, the most effective anti-piracy measure seems to be producing a product people want at a price they're willing to pay.
Dude, I know you like to comment, but you should stick to things where you know the facts.
I dunno, but this is a perfectly reasonable assertion to me:
If jail-breaking ceases to be something that is required for legal purposes like network unlocking, and is primarily used for illegal purposes such as game piracy, the exception may not be renewed.
They just need to check the AppleID as it logs into Game Centre and see if the game was purchased by that account. If it wasn't then don't allow them to access it in Game Centre.
I would have assumed they were already doing this since Game Centre seems to know what apps I have, but I guess it's just checking what's present on the device at the moment.
Why would you assume this? There is no requirement that the Apple ID used to purchase an app an the Game Center ID be the same - plenty of legitimate reasons for this have been cited in the thread already.
Since jail-breaking is legal, Apple cannot stop it.
Er, let's cut down on the hyperbole a little OK?
Apple can't pursue legal action against those who make jailbreaks available, but they can certainly stop it. All they have to do is tighten up their code (i.e. the iOS 4.3.4 update that is pending).
For some extra expense, Apple could certainly make jailbreaking impractical. Not impossible, but they could certainly raise the bar to something that only a few with specialized tools could do. If enough crap like rampant piracy continues, it could motivate Apple to take those steps. Our costs would go up, flexibility in the devices would be removed - all because a few assholes with no morals and infinite ability to rationalize bad behavior act poorly.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
tethered jail-breaks particularly are hard to completely stop.
Not hard, just not worth the effort - so far. There are multiple techniques that Apple could use, but they drive up manufacturing and engineering costs. They can never 100% protect something that someone has physical access to - but they can make it impractical for all but the most skilled/determined. It just depends on where the tipping point it. So far it's still in the "Apathy" zone from Apple's perspective, but if people are people and the number of asshole pirates keeps increasing, I wouldn't be surprised if at sometime Apple really raises the bar.
Apple can easily track pirated vs. legit apps by using and tracking the Serial numbers of sold apps.
What serial number?
That's the same like saying just because some guys downloaded few movies from torrent sites movie companies lost money. They showed by downloading that they are not willing to pay.
If your not willing to pay, you have no right to the app and you are stealing.
Same as with movies.
Whether or not people are "willing" is immaterial. If you don't like that something costs money, your only recourse is to not use and and do something else. Not blatantly thieve and then rationalize the blatant theft away.
Sheesh... and people wonder why our economy is tanking?
Possibly, I can say this: among the people I know personally who jailbreak (5) not a single one of them did so to pirate apps, maybe it's an age thing, my group is late 20s and early 30s.
Fine - but if Apple were to deploy a 100% foolproof block for jailbreaking tomorrow - oh well! It's their right.
Personally I don't care one way or the other. I was going to jailbreak for wifi sync and a few other goodies, but iOS 5 will finally address those. So now I don't have to worry about it - and the biggest reason I love my iPhone and iPad will be preserved: the appliance-like experience. I have no problem tweaking the hell out of my Windows and Mac machines, but I like that the integrated environment for iOS devices yields the most stable and problem free devices I have owned for what are basically pocket computers.
I also have no problem with jailbreakers - for now. But if the jailbreak community starts doing stuff that dissuades developers, then I will be all for Apple slamming the door shut. If you don't agree, then have fun with Android, Palm or one of the $99 linux devices... that's what great about choice!
Nothing stupid about it. There are people that will never buy a movie or an app and saying that studios or devs lost money doesn't change much.
Whether or not they would have or have not lost money ITS STILL THEFT
You can rationalize it all you want but it's still theft, just like the sky is blue and gravity is preventing you from being flung into space.
But mobile apps? This many people pirate something that costs $.99? How the hell can they justify that? It's cheap. Really cheap. Buy it or do without, or deal with ads. Criminy.
People are assholes and their ability to rationalize is incredible.
Just look at Povilas above me
$2600 for FUll CS5.5 makes no sense for me - but $100 or maybe even $200 to get fully licensed but without any paper manuals or support would work for me.
That's why you can rent it now.
And yet the majority of people are still probably pirating it or lying about being students
Face it, pirates are assholes. Like drug addicts, they will rationalize and come up with a million reasons why their bad behavior isn't bad or is at least neutral (Well, I wasn't going to buy it anyway therefor they really aren't out anything anyway and your just being a dick for calling me a thief!).
It's still theft and it's still wrong. If you don't like the cost of something, go create your own alternative. There is no moral imperative to use someone else's stuff for free just because you don't agree with their wishes.
Selfish thieves....