I think most people who have used the PC are used to going on the internet and downloading some free games (or demos), or visiting the retail store to purchase a copy of a game. The reason rarely do people purchase games online is because of the security (or DRM) attached to digital copies. The other main reason is that you must submit sensitive private financial information to buy games, and if every company processed credit cards, your chances of having your private info being leaked multiplies with each company you purchase from. Finally, kids don't have credit cards, so they will most likely just hop to their nearest game store and pay cash. Another big reason is that it takes too long to download gigabytes of a good game, compared to just sticking a DVD or Blu-Ray into a drive.
The PS3, PSP, and iPhone can get away with it is because the demos and games are usually quite small (espcially with future PSP Minis and iPhone games and apps). There is also only one place where you download games and apps from, so the chance of a leak only comes from one place.
But the problem with the current App Store model is that in the future that is not the best solution. The App Store basically tries to imitate WalMart, or the Supermarket, by selling as many things as possible under one roof, destroying all the small independent stores. But the App Stores are different from traditional Walmart and supermarkets that allow same products to be sold in other places (including successful small independent stores). Traditional stores, there is no restriction on the manufacturers of products to seek a better place to sell their stuff. App stores, however, limit what products are sold (only those approved), where you can sell (only in one store online), and who can sell (only those who are approved). This is different from traditional PC software where you can purchase applications or games from ANY place (retail, amazon, ebay, paypal exchange, etc). In other words, a popular application can ONLY be found in ONE app store, no where else. Manufacturer's success are limited to how good their application is in the one App store, no other outlets.
Of course, the best model is to allow as many manufacturers as possible selling in as many outlets as possible. You want as many people to be able to create and manufacture things as possible. Not limit it to only a few players. It is sad that a few powerful and rich companies hold a monopoly on who can run what software on what device. With the internet explosion any website should become an independent storefront with potential to become a walmart, selling as many products as they chose to. Anyone should be able to create software and sell to a device without hampered by restrictions.
Microsoft did good by allowing anyone to create software for a profit selling in any place they want, but got carried away with forcing everyone to run on their platform. They did bad by trying to destroy all their competition by absorbing every idea (good and bad) into one product. This is why Windows Vista and Windows 7 is so slow, it is dogged by trying to absorb java interpreted technology into the OS (via .NET), and those virtual layers upon layers of indirect abstraction (drivers, virtual OS, etc).
Device: Bad (well the device OS that it runs on)
Manufacturers: Good
Retailers: Good
Sony did good by offering subsidized (cheap but powerful) hardware to people without them being hampered by speed issues. They did bad by only allowing a few manufacturers to create games. But once in you can sell almost anywhere (if not online).
Device: Good
Manufacturers: Bad (only a handful companies benefit from making games)
Retailers: Good
Apple did good by moving the games back into the independent developers, but in the process, they did bad by limiting where people can sell their products in one App store.
Device: Good (could take some lessons from Sony though)
Manufacturers: Medium (you need approval, but not as restricted as sony)
Retailers: Bad (you are limited to selling in the App store, which limits profit)
So what would be a model that best conforms to:
Device: Good
Manufacturers: Good
Retailers: Good
I think it is fair to say that the future is to allow as many manufacturers and retailers as possible, and not limit them to only a few players. A model that takes the best of all three above. A cheap and powerful subsidized device that has a very fast OS layer allowing many manufacturers to easily offer products to sell on it, and let many websites and retailers able to sell the product easily. Perhaps the device manufacturers can offer digital signing services for profit, allowing large numbers of game creators (manufacturers) and website operators (retailers) their freedom to maximize their investment. If the device is made right, they can probably make a profit solely on selling the device alone (move the PC into the mobile phone arena) without any restrictions on software creators and their outlets.
The PS3, PSP, and iPhone can get away with it is because the demos and games are usually quite small (espcially with future PSP Minis and iPhone games and apps). There is also only one place where you download games and apps from, so the chance of a leak only comes from one place.
But the problem with the current App Store model is that in the future that is not the best solution. The App Store basically tries to imitate WalMart, or the Supermarket, by selling as many things as possible under one roof, destroying all the small independent stores. But the App Stores are different from traditional Walmart and supermarkets that allow same products to be sold in other places (including successful small independent stores). Traditional stores, there is no restriction on the manufacturers of products to seek a better place to sell their stuff. App stores, however, limit what products are sold (only those approved), where you can sell (only in one store online), and who can sell (only those who are approved). This is different from traditional PC software where you can purchase applications or games from ANY place (retail, amazon, ebay, paypal exchange, etc). In other words, a popular application can ONLY be found in ONE app store, no where else. Manufacturer's success are limited to how good their application is in the one App store, no other outlets.
Of course, the best model is to allow as many manufacturers as possible selling in as many outlets as possible. You want as many people to be able to create and manufacture things as possible. Not limit it to only a few players. It is sad that a few powerful and rich companies hold a monopoly on who can run what software on what device. With the internet explosion any website should become an independent storefront with potential to become a walmart, selling as many products as they chose to. Anyone should be able to create software and sell to a device without hampered by restrictions.
Microsoft did good by allowing anyone to create software for a profit selling in any place they want, but got carried away with forcing everyone to run on their platform. They did bad by trying to destroy all their competition by absorbing every idea (good and bad) into one product. This is why Windows Vista and Windows 7 is so slow, it is dogged by trying to absorb java interpreted technology into the OS (via .NET), and those virtual layers upon layers of indirect abstraction (drivers, virtual OS, etc).
Device: Bad (well the device OS that it runs on)
Manufacturers: Good
Retailers: Good
Sony did good by offering subsidized (cheap but powerful) hardware to people without them being hampered by speed issues. They did bad by only allowing a few manufacturers to create games. But once in you can sell almost anywhere (if not online).
Device: Good
Manufacturers: Bad (only a handful companies benefit from making games)
Retailers: Good
Apple did good by moving the games back into the independent developers, but in the process, they did bad by limiting where people can sell their products in one App store.
Device: Good (could take some lessons from Sony though)
Manufacturers: Medium (you need approval, but not as restricted as sony)
Retailers: Bad (you are limited to selling in the App store, which limits profit)
So what would be a model that best conforms to:
Device: Good
Manufacturers: Good
Retailers: Good
I think it is fair to say that the future is to allow as many manufacturers and retailers as possible, and not limit them to only a few players. A model that takes the best of all three above. A cheap and powerful subsidized device that has a very fast OS layer allowing many manufacturers to easily offer products to sell on it, and let many websites and retailers able to sell the product easily. Perhaps the device manufacturers can offer digital signing services for profit, allowing large numbers of game creators (manufacturers) and website operators (retailers) their freedom to maximize their investment. If the device is made right, they can probably make a profit solely on selling the device alone (move the PC into the mobile phone arena) without any restrictions on software creators and their outlets.
Last edited by a moderator:
