Previously on iOS Gaming Shit-storm:

Plucky developers Semi Secret Software wow the internet with Flash endless-running/jumping game Canabalt, which makes the leap [pause for laugh track] to iOS, and kick-starts a genre. After raising $25,000 for charity during an indie sale event, Canabalt goes open-source, with the caveat that

Canabalt-specific game code, game art, animation, music and sound effects are all proprietary, and protected by our copyrights and trademarks.  That is, you can copy-paste our engine code (any of the Flixel stuff, which is most of the good stuff anyways), and even sell it on the App Store, but you can’t distribute or redistribute our game code, art or sounds

Idiot developer PLD cunningly copies Canabalt (as Free Runner), even cloning its App Store description, and Apple approves it for sale (Pocket Gamer), THE FOOLS!

And now, the shocking twist in our latest episode:

I think Apple was right to approve the app.

“BWUH?” you might have just uttered, especially if you know how much of a fan of indie gaming I am, and how I spent quite a lot of time writing articles that told everyone what a dick Tim Langdell was being in 2009, attacking every game that had the word ‘Edge’ in its title. (Langdell was eventually defeated when EA decided to use its powers for good.)

The reason Apple was right to approve the app is because it cannot be the copyright police. There’s no way Apple can check a game against the 40,000 that already exist with any degree of consistency, also looking into the background of whether a ‘clone’ was authorised or not. If that was part of the app approvals process, we’d be back to the bad old days of games taking months to appear after submission. Instead, developers must be vigilant and Apple must be swift in reacting to cases like Canabalt/Free Runner, removing the clone and—where relevant—nuking the dev account responsible for the infringement.

This time I believe Apple got everything right. The game was initially approved, but then removed from sale within a day (Pocket Gamer, again), after a complaint was made. And, in an odd way, it might have even benefitted Semi Secret, in getting its ageing game a little extra PR now that myriad similar and superior games exist and are getting all the column inches.

According to Hunter Hillegas of Hanchor LLC, having his app in the Mac App Store hit number six in a category chart (‘Developer Tools’), zooming past BBEdit and Coda, wasn’t reason enough to break out the champagne—nor did it provide enough revenue to even buy some champagne:

At the end of that Monday, I couldn’t wait to see the AppFigures.com report in the morning. I was excited enough that it was a little hard to sleep that night. When the report came in the next day, I was surprised: 11 copies had sold. Eleven. I had made enough money to buy a pizza… as long as it was a small one… without toppings

Hillegas wonders if Apple’s algorithms are broken, and if his experience points to greater problems with the Mac App Store:

As far as I know, Apple hasn’t released any stats on the Mac App Store since the day after it opened. Maybe that’s because they’re not that all that great. As a user, I love the convenience of the Mac App Store – I setup a new machine recently and for the apps purchased through that channel, it was super easy to get going. I hope all my software is delivered this way in the future.

That said, if this is the future of Mac apps, based on my experience it seems like it has a ways to go.

It’s easy to make excuses (or not) for Apple, but in this case I do think it’s necessary. The Mac App Store is a very different proposition to the iOS store, which Apple’s crowed about from a revenue standpoint at every opportunity:

• The iOS store was available on iOS devices as of iOS 2.0.1, prior to which third-party applications were, to all extents and purposes, non-existent. By contrast, the Mac App Store is only available to Intel Macs whose users have upgraded to at least Mac OS X 10.6.6.
• Ignoring jailbreaking, the iOS store is still the only place to get new software for iOS devices. For the Mac, you can buy boxed software or download from myriad locations.

I think as of Lion, developers like Hillegas could see some big changes. It’s pretty clear that the Mac App Store will be more heavily pushed by Apple as the place to download new software (possibly, by Mac OS X 10.8 or 10.9 becoming the only place), and as more users upgrade, the audience will grow.

I also suspect many holdouts—people used to the ‘old way’ of doing things—will change their habits soon enough. I’m in the process of installing a new Mac now, which has involved downloading a ton of DMGs, rifling through drawers for DVDs and locating serial numbers. But the few apps I’ve bought from the Mac App Store were installed by clicking an install button. The process was painless and convenient; in the long term, that alone should guarantee the Mac App Store (and developers capitalising on it) enjoys at least some measure of success.

Hat tip: The Brooks Review.

Eric Ogren for Information Week, in April 2008:

I am beginning to despair that Nokia will ever understand the U.S. market. As its recently revealed quarterly earnings tell us, its share of the market here dropped yet again. Despite the fact that Nokia is building a touch-enabled device that looks eerily similar to you-know-what, Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo called the iPhone a “niche” product.

Matt Hamblen for Computerworld/Macworld, yesterday:

Nokia sold 24.2 million smartphones in the first quarter, maintaining its global smartphone lead despite announcing it will move in coming years from Symbian to Windows Phone as its main smartphone operating system, IDC said. Nokia “may find itself in danger of ceding market share as the competition ramps up,” IDC said.

Apple shipped 18.7 million iPhones in the first quarter, IDC said, a new record for a single quarter “and inched closer to market leader Nokia with fewer than six million units separating the two companies,” IDC noted.

Apple’s not there yet, and Nokia may well manage to battle alongside Microsoft, but 18.7 million is a pretty big niche.

The Macworld article adds:

Overall, 99.6 million smartphones shipped in the first quarter, out of 372 million overall mobile phones.

How long will it be before we can just call ‘smartphones’ mobile phones (or just phones) and relegate mobile phones to something else? Dumbphones, anyone?

Given that the majority of the publishing industry continues to throw its toys out of the pram regarding digital editions and Apple, it’s interesting to read a very contrary viewpoint on FT’s Tech Hub, regarding the Telegraph Media Group’s iPad app:

Digital editor, Edward Roussel, says Apple has been “co-operative and helpful” during its development.

That was particularly true in making the app easy for existing print subscribers to access for free and Apple was even flexible in allowing the Telegraph to access customer data. Data has been another big sticking point for publishers concerned that Apple would not hand over information about their customers.

The Telegraph iPad app will cost £9.99 a month, but Mr Roussel is happy to give £3 of that to Apple because the App Store is such a “user-friendly” way to pay—and in any case relatively similar to the costs of distributing a print product.

Whether this points to a possible thaw in the frosty relationship between Apple and print publishers remains to be seen, but newspapers (and, indeed, book and magazine publishers) need to find ways to stay relevant, and an iPad app is one of them, despite any enforced compromises.

Via Cult of Mac.

Today is the UK referendum on electoral reform. Brits get to choose between FPTP and AV, and the vast majority of my political posts on this blog have been about it, including the much-read AV versus FPTP—just the facts, man. And an interview with someone a bit right-wing who doesn’t exist. (Note to non-Brits and the politically agnostic—don’t worry, I’ll be back to mostly banging on about tech and gaming next week.)

A bunch of people have asked me to explain in a little more depth about how the voting systems work, and so here’s a brief overview.

Briefly, FPTP (our existing system) works as follows:

• Vote for one candidate
• The candidate with the most votes wins the seat

The main strength of FPTP is that it’s dead simple; it’s also largely fair in head-to-head(ish) seats that are mostly a contest between two candidates.

The main problems with FPTP are that its winner-takes-all approach leads to tactical voting in more complex seats, and it also enables someone to take a seat with a minority vote share. There’s also the spoiler effect, which the Tories have used well in recent years—the ‘left’/moderate vote splits, enabling the Tories to win seats that Labour or Lib Dem supporters would have been happy(ish) going to the other candidate.

AV works as follows:

1. Vote for as many candidates as you wish, ranking them in order
2. If a candidate has 50% of the vote, they win the seat, otherwise:
3. Second-choice preferences for the lowest-placed candidates are redistributed.

2 and 3 loop until a candidate has over 50% of the vote. The end result is a winner with the direct backing of core supporters and indirect backing of people who think they are at least ‘better than the other guy’. This kills the spoiler effect.

How could this work in practice? Well, in a seat where a candidate already has a really strong showing, winning over 50% of votes, AV makes no difference at all. This makes sense, since the candidate clearly has majority backing from their constituents. But let’s travel back to a made-up 2010 and a fairly tight contest in a UK seat, with three candidates: Left Lib, Lefty Lab and Righty Con. Righty Con’s a lazy fucker, but he wins elections because the Lefty votes are split and because he has enough core support to squeak through each time. But in the expenses scandal, it was shown that he’s expensed a £25,000 hat and a decade’s worth of Smarties, and so polling suggests things will be tight.

Under FPTP, this is what happened in Made-Up On Thames in 2010:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

As you can see, Righty Con only had a slim majority over Lefty Lab, but the majority of the voters didn’t want him. In fact, all the Lefty lot are now hugely pissed off and confused, and they’re banging on about tactical voting next time and how they should have voted for someone who wasn’t their first choice last time. But that might not have made any odds because not everyone would have done this and OH IT’S TOO CONFUSING.

In a magical world where AV actually wins the referendum today, here’s what happens in 2015, with the exact same turnout:

Lefty Lib: 29%
Lefty Lab: 35%
Righty Con: 36%

Man, those guys don’t learn, do they? The exact same result. Hurrah for Righty Con!

BUT WAIT! We have AV now, and so the votes don’t work in the same way. Lefty Lib is last, and so he is eliminated (possibly by firing squad) and his second-choice votes are redistributed. The vast majority of Lefty Lib supporters thought Lefty Lab was a better bet than Righty Con, and so this is what subsequently happened:

Lefty Lab: 58%
Righty Con: 42%

Lefty Lab now wins, backed directly by 35% and indirectly by the majority of the remainder. In 2020, Righty Con will have to work harder to appeal to a broader range of people, rather than being a lazy git.

And that, ultimately, is your choice today. I’m voting yes to AV. The system is imperfect and not what I’d choose if we had a larger selection of tasty reform-oriented treats, but I think AV betters FPTP in important areas. However, even if you disagree, go and vote. The UK rarely gets chances like this, so make the most of it and make your voice heard.