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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Good explanation and those were my thoughts as well. Look at the WINE project for example that allows Crossover to run Windows apps on OS X without installing Windows. I use it to play some Windows games like Unreal Tournament 2004 since the Mac version will no longer work under Mountain Lion. As long as they are using OpenGL and their own wrappers's they aren't doing anything wrong. Personally I wouldn't buy the product as I am fine with playing games on my iPad but that is what the free market is all about. It seems ridiculous to attack this company without knowing is they are "stealing" andy Apple code. For all we know Apple might be thrilled since they can beta test how games and apps would work on an Apple TV for free and learn from their mistakes if they decide to do it themselves.
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)
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.
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
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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.
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.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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.
Then why do all those emulators exist. I have to yet see one get taken down.
Perhaps it's like Wine (or Darwine) that mimics Windows' API to run Windows apps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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."
What part of "without using any Apple code" didn't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
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.
Good explanation and those were my thoughts as well. Look at the WINE project for example that allows Crossover to run Windows apps on OS X without installing Windows. I use it to play some Windows games like Unreal Tournament 2004 since the Mac version will no longer work under Mountain Lion. As long as they are using OpenGL and their own wrappers's they aren't doing anything wrong. Personally I wouldn't buy the product as I am fine with playing games on my iPad but that is what the free market is all about. It seems ridiculous to attack this company without knowing is they are "stealing" andy Apple code. For all we know Apple might be thrilled since they can beta test how games and apps would work on an Apple TV for free and learn from their mistakes if they decide to do it themselves.
EDIT: Didn't stop Psystar from trying. Or ProView. (LOL, typo fail)
If it gets the same results but does it differently then it's not in violation.
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.
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
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.