Angry Chickens is blasting its way to the top of the App Store charts, proving once again that one path to iOS gaming riches is:

• Create run-of-the-mill game with plenty of pay-off
• Include birds
• Make birds cute
• Polish game until it squeaks

Whether or not you bother with the fourth of those will depend on whether you want your game to be dismissed immediately or bob about in the charts for months.

But Angry Chickens has drawn ire, because it’s such a rip-off of Angry Birds, except, you know, it isn’t. Yes, it involves irritating cartoon birds and also has a title quite clearly designed to confuse people. And, yes, it has physics-oriented destruction-based gameplay. But Angry Chickens is actually a rip-off of Siege Hero, which is a 3D version of Angry Birds, which is a clone of Crush the Castle, an artillery game by the Siege Hero guys, which itself is effectively an online (now also iOS) and advanced take on ancient Apple II game Artillery, which was probably based on a BASIC game also called Artillery.

Clear?

The entire Mac press is all excited about a new Apple product that hasn’t been revealed by Apple, but has been sneakily unveiled by unnamed sources talking to a publication with a poor track record regarding Apple rumours.

Apple will launch their new Apple TV in time for the last quarter of 2012, with sources in Japan telling SmartHouse that 3 sizes are being planned including a 32″ model and a 55″ model.

That of course makes perfect sense, given that Apple makes a 3.5-inch, 4-inch and 5-inch iPhone, along with a 7-inch, 10-inch and 13-inch iPad, right? Oh. And, as Adam Banks noted on Twitter:

Yeah, and how Apple, a computer company, makes only one computer monitor, but obviously would make 3 TVs

Also, Apple loves entering markets with slow device turnover and that scrap it out in price wars, as evidenced by the _____, _____ and ______. Therefore, like the aforelinked publication, I have no doubt whatsoever that Apple will next year offer the iTV in small unicorn, medium unicorn and MEGA UNICORN sizes, for three times the price of a competing TV, kick UK broadcaster ITV in the face, and not, in fact, continue sneakily working its way into the living room through revisions to the existing Apple TV and iCloud (as an affordable but surprisingly powerful media hub, games console, and rental service), because that would be a totally stupid suggestion.

UNICORNS ALL THE WAY!

ZDNet, reporting on how Apple argues Samsung could avoid infringing on its iPad and iPhone designs:

Samsung could avoid infringing on its iPhone designs by not making rectangular phones; not putting the screen on the front of the phone; adding “substantial adornment” to the fronts of their phones; and not having bezels around the screen.

Apple’s suggestions for a non-infringing tablet include, again, a non-rectangular shape, front surfaces that are not flat and that have substantial adornment; avoiding making the tablet thin; using thick rather than thin frames around the screen; and introducing a “cluttered appearance”.

Sounds an awful lot like “maybe you should make the same kind of shit you were creating before you decided to rip off our products, assholes”.

I know I’m not in the majority on this, but I still believe Apple has a point. Its suggestions are ridiculous, but if the iPad and iPhone designs are so obvious, why did no-one bring one to market before Apple did?

It’s also worth noting that Samsung in particular appears to be bearing the brunt of Apple’s anger. Perhaps, as The Verge showcased earlier this year, that’s in part down to Samsung also:

• Ripping off Apple’s packaging
• Ripping off Apple’s device photography and positioning
• Ripping off a bunch of Apple’s iOS icons

In the long run, I’ll be amazed if Apple wins anything. I suspect lawsuits will continue to be flung in every direction and end in a flurry of cross-licensing and bile. I also suspect Apple’s design is so simple and now so ubiquitous that courts will end up siding with rivals that there isn’t any other way these kinds of devices can look and still be workable. But, as noted, this doesn’t really let Samsung off the hook, because it’s gone further than any other company, crossing that line from inspiration to plagiarism.

Hat tip: David Meyer.

Pocket Gamer:

The latest update to developer HotGen’s Pocket Gamer Bronze Award-winning iPhone and iPad title To-Fu: The Trials of Chi has caused a bit of a stir.

[Despite] the update making the rock-solid platformer—and all of its in-app purchases—available for free, it introduces pesky ads that flash up at the bottom of your device’s screen as you play. This has upset some of the players that bought the title for 69p / 99c.

The iPad version is also affected, and that initially cost £1.99/$2.99. One recent review on the App Store states:

Now I always have an advert which I don’t usually mind but this time they actually affect the gameplay, it makes the game screen smaller, you can accidentally touch the advert and it is a bit distracting.

And that’s one of the more constructive of the recent slew of one-star reviews.

I find HotGen’s stance very odd, since it appears to show disrespect for those who already paid for To-Fu. If I’ve spent money on a game, the last thing I want is for the developer to suddenly make it free and shove adverts in my face. It also makes me concerned about other HotGen products. Will To-Fu 2 be next? What about Spacelings? (Note that I this morning asked for a comment from the company’s PR as to why this decision was made, and will update this article should I receive a reply.)

HotGen’s hardly alone. I’ve seen plenty of iOS games integrating house ads (sometimes in the form of ‘news announcements’), and I find such things irksome at best. But it’s pretty rare to see a paid-for title switch to free and have banners welded to it, compromising the experience for all and angering people who originally paid for it.

ZDNet:

In 2010, 84% of Mozilla’s $123 million in revenue came directly from Google. That’s roughly $100 million in funds that will vanish or be drastically cut if the deal is either not renewed or is renegotiated on terms that are less favorable to Mozilla.

I think it would be a huge pity if Mozilla was forced to scale back dramatically. Firefox has become a bloated shadow of its former svelte self, but the organisation has driven plenty of innovation on the web (even if it has a somewhat extremist stance on support—or the lack thereof—for some patented tech, such as video formats, while happily ignoring long-time support for formats like JPEG).

But if Mozilla is heavily reliant on Google for funding when Google itself is being squeezed by the likes of iOS apps circumventing a lot of browser use, leading to Google pushing rather harder for Chrome marketshare than it otherwise would be, that’s not a good sign. And it’s another warning that any organisation shouldn’t rely too heavily on another for its income, especially when that other is a direct rival.