EA Killing Rock Band For iPhone, Game Will Be Unplayable For Current Owners(toucharcade.com)
toucharcade.com
EA Killing Rock Band For iPhone, Game Will Be Unplayable For Current Owners
http://toucharcade.com/2012/05/02/original-ios-rock-band-shutting-down-at-the-end-of-may/
104 comments
Much as I hate lawyers and class-action lawsuits, I'd be willing to bet EA gets taken to court over this if Apple doesn't punish them. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that one could argue in court that there's an implied warranty that your app won't just quit functioning on some arbitrarily chosen date. After all, this does sound remarkably similar to Bait-and-switch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
I had to see it with my own eyes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rock-band/id333307161?mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rock-band/id333307161?mt=8
Interesting how there's no mention of its discontinuation with the exception of user reviews. I can't help but imagine a few stragglers might buy it this month and immediately lose access.
Even better, it hasn't been updated since 2010. That implies EA planned to pull the plug when they shipped it.
Not necessarily. They could have a messaging thing built in that just pulled a message from a server.
Sure, thats true for the message their popping. But it also means the kill switch was in there since then. I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they intended to cancel it from the start though, if this is standard practice for all their apps.
I think the "kill switch" is that the server that it connects to when it boots up will be gone. It's not like it'll self destruct on the phone--you'll still be able to launch the app, it just won't connect to the server. Therefore, you won't be able to play.
The same thing would happen with, say, Draw Something, if a tornado came through and wiped out their data center. They wouldn't have built a purposeful "kill switch," it's just a de facto one because the server would then be embedded into a tree somewhere.
The same thing would happen with, say, Draw Something, if a tornado came through and wiped out their data center. They wouldn't have built a purposeful "kill switch," it's just a de facto one because the server would then be embedded into a tree somewhere.
As apps move to the cloud, record albums turn into subscriptions, and books become bits on a Kindle, I fear this sort of thing will become more commonplace.
Sometimes intentionally, like this example, sometimes you'll lose access to things you thought you had bought as companies merge or expire, or through good old-fashioned screw-ups.
I can run a program on my thirty-year-old Apple computer today just as I could when I bought it, even though the company who made the software may have disappeared in the '90s. Records I bought as a kid are still here, and no one can edit or "deauthorize" the books on my shelf.
I wonder if kids born now will grow up without any expectation that buying any form of software or media entitles them to keep and use what they've bought anytime they want?
Sometimes intentionally, like this example, sometimes you'll lose access to things you thought you had bought as companies merge or expire, or through good old-fashioned screw-ups.
I can run a program on my thirty-year-old Apple computer today just as I could when I bought it, even though the company who made the software may have disappeared in the '90s. Records I bought as a kid are still here, and no one can edit or "deauthorize" the books on my shelf.
I wonder if kids born now will grow up without any expectation that buying any form of software or media entitles them to keep and use what they've bought anytime they want?
Paranoia: in 20 years when you try to go online with your MacBook, it defaults to a kernel message, "Unfortunately this hardware is too old to connect to the U-net and is no longer supported. Please upgrade at ____". I don't buy it, but it is possible, especially as operating systems become more centralized within the cloud and whatnot. Our Apple ][s, Macs, Mac Classics, etc. aren't social enough to be ostracized anyway.
What's crazy is that kids today won't have music passed down to them per this trend. The license to your iTunes music collection ends with your life as per the Apple ToS (seriously).
I don't want to buy licenses. Can we please buy things that are real (like bits, real).
I don't want to buy licenses. Can we please buy things that are real (like bits, real).
Nobody gives a shit what the tos say. People will share their music.
The great irony of the information age is that everything will be forgotten.
Wow, that's pretty insane. Wonder how Apple will treat EA's iOS developer license if they keep doing it like that.
Otherwise you could dodge the whole "apps that are 'trial' versions" are prohibited... Release the app for a small sum, pull it after a while and release a sequel!
Or will this be another case of "some developers are more equal than others"?
Otherwise you could dodge the whole "apps that are 'trial' versions" are prohibited... Release the app for a small sum, pull it after a while and release a sequel!
Or will this be another case of "some developers are more equal than others"?
As much as I dislike Apple's meddling, I'd love it if they punished EA for this.
Apple's taking a 30% cut of $a-lot-of-money that passes through their App Store because of EA's games, I don't think they're going to rescind their ability to develop for iOS.
Yes, but Apple is always willing to prioritize users over developers, which is why Apple is constantly pissing off developers by making them jump through extra hoops. Apple is not going to yank EA's apps, but it's likely that EA is going to get a call from Apple.
Apple cares about selling hardware. App Store revenues are absolutely nothing compared to their hardware margins.
Anyone who fucks with their ability to sell feel-good hardware will get the lash. Let's see how fucked-with they feel after this.
Anyone who fucks with their ability to sell feel-good hardware will get the lash. Let's see how fucked-with they feel after this.
Didn't Apple do the same thing themselves with Siri, albeit it was free?
EA apparently just retracted: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57426660-93/ea-not-killing-...
Doesn't really work when it is posted in the FAQ. This appears to be a poor cover-up or a pretty big internal misunderstanding.
http://i.imgur.com/eTwHH.png
http://i.imgur.com/eTwHH.png
Usually when something I wrote or released produces an error, I don't corroborate that error with human-written text on my website. EA is full of shit.
If you owned it, you can go to your transactions page and issue a refund. It takes around 4 hours, and it comes out of EA's pockets!
Is this on iOS? If so, how does one get to the transactions page?
It's in iTunes IIRC. Sorry, don't know exactly where, but it's in there. It won't be anywhere logical, I'm guessing.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5590751_refund-itunes.html
It only works for transactions made in the last 90 days though.
It only works for transactions made in the last 90 days though.
I tried to find out more from their Support pages but only found this FAQ: https://help.ea.com/article/will-rock-band-no-longer-be-avai...
From the page:
Will ROCK BAND no longer be available on mobile devices?
Updated: 5/2/2012
I've heard ROCK BAND will not be available after May 31. Is this true?
Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 and focusing resources on other EA titles. We thank everyone for playing ROCK BAND, and we encourage you to explore some of the other exciting titles in our mobile line-up.
Can I still play ROCK BAND if I've already downloaded it?
The ROCK BAND servers will be live through May 31, 2012. If you have already downloaded the game, you can continue to play until then.
From the page:
Will ROCK BAND no longer be available on mobile devices?
Updated: 5/2/2012
I've heard ROCK BAND will not be available after May 31. Is this true?
Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 and focusing resources on other EA titles. We thank everyone for playing ROCK BAND, and we encourage you to explore some of the other exciting titles in our mobile line-up.
Can I still play ROCK BAND if I've already downloaded it?
The ROCK BAND servers will be live through May 31, 2012. If you have already downloaded the game, you can continue to play until then.
They've now memory-holed this page.
No surprise. Their official story is that it was an error.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57426660-93/ea-not-killing-...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57426660-93/ea-not-killing-...
I can only guess this is because of 2 reasons (which come down to cost):
- Song licensing deals expire with unfavorable renewal costs
- Server and other costs outweigh incoming revenue
Soo... does that mean other platforms also expire when they can't be bothered to support a game? For example, a playstation version? What about guitar hero?
(Why would the servers be required anyways? To stream content? Couldn't content be downloaded on first run (which means you only need to fund a server&pipe big enough for new purchases))
(Why would the servers be required anyways? To stream content? Couldn't content be downloaded on first run (which means you only need to fund a server&pipe big enough for new purchases))
There been instances where games re-released on new platforms have been modified because the creators were unable or unwilling to re-license certain content again. One example that comes to mind is Sega removing songs from The Offspring from Crazy Taxi when they released a version of the game for Xbox Live Arcade. The original arcade version also featured real branded destinations, like KFC, and these have been turned into generic versions.
I can't say I've ever heard of /existing/ copies of games disabled when a license expires.
[deleted]
> Soo... does that mean other platforms also expire when they can't be bothered to support a game? For example, a playstation version?
What? Are you being intentionally ridiculous. They license songs. I don't know the terms of these specific licenses but the way they work in general is that they can license the game for a specific use and/or term. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know specific legal terms off the top of my head but there's a different license for the PlayStation version of the game where they are giving the user a copy of the song to have and to hold and one where they would stream, which I assume the iOS version is actually doing. Again, not a lawyer so I don't know the specifics but you will often see something like a TV show having broadcast rights to use a song in their show but they (especially for older shows) may have failed to procure the appropriate rights to use the song on the DVD version.
Now, I don't know too much about the Rock Band app so I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about it is likely to come through and correct me but it sounds like the songs are streamed for the iPhone. This wouldn't be as crazy as it sounds since phones still have relatively limited space and applications with smaller footprints are thus easier to manage.
What? Are you being intentionally ridiculous. They license songs. I don't know the terms of these specific licenses but the way they work in general is that they can license the game for a specific use and/or term. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know specific legal terms off the top of my head but there's a different license for the PlayStation version of the game where they are giving the user a copy of the song to have and to hold and one where they would stream, which I assume the iOS version is actually doing. Again, not a lawyer so I don't know the specifics but you will often see something like a TV show having broadcast rights to use a song in their show but they (especially for older shows) may have failed to procure the appropriate rights to use the song on the DVD version.
Now, I don't know too much about the Rock Band app so I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about it is likely to come through and correct me but it sounds like the songs are streamed for the iPhone. This wouldn't be as crazy as it sounds since phones still have relatively limited space and applications with smaller footprints are thus easier to manage.
iOS Developer Program License Agreement
3.3.16 Any master recordings and musical compositions embodied in Your Application must be wholly-owned by You or licensed to You on a fully paid-up basis and in a manner that will not require the payment of any fees, royalties and/or sums by Apple to You or any third party. In addition, if Your Application will be distributed outside of the United States, any master recordings and musical compositions embodied in Your Application (a) must not fall within the repertoire of any mechanical or performing/communication rights collecting or licensing organization now or in the future and (b) if licensed, must be exclusively licensed to You for Your Application by each applicable copyright owner.
3.3.16 Any master recordings and musical compositions embodied in Your Application must be wholly-owned by You or licensed to You on a fully paid-up basis and in a manner that will not require the payment of any fees, royalties and/or sums by Apple to You or any third party. In addition, if Your Application will be distributed outside of the United States, any master recordings and musical compositions embodied in Your Application (a) must not fall within the repertoire of any mechanical or performing/communication rights collecting or licensing organization now or in the future and (b) if licensed, must be exclusively licensed to You for Your Application by each applicable copyright owner.
Ooh, do we have a smoking gun here?
Edit: And will this have consequences for any other EA offerings?
Edit: And will this have consequences for any other EA offerings?
I'm not. I couldn't see anywhere on the app description or in the lengthy custom EULA they attached that notifies the user that they are actually buying a subscription or leasing the songs (or that the app is allowed to expire, for that matter).
When you buy Guitar Hero or Rock Band on the playstation, the disc is yours to keep and play forever (I assume). I'd expect the same from an iOS app.
Especially since the .ipa download is 160 MB.
When you buy Guitar Hero or Rock Band on the playstation, the disc is yours to keep and play forever (I assume). I'd expect the same from an iOS app.
Especially since the .ipa download is 160 MB.
> Why would the servers be required anyways? To stream content? Couldn't content be downloaded on first run
Probably depends on licensing terms. I can absolutely see record companies licensing under terms that don't allow end-users to save the music locally.
Probably depends on licensing terms. I can absolutely see record companies licensing under terms that don't allow end-users to save the music locally.
I'm sure a blanket refund issued to all the current owners of the game will quickly explain to EA why this is a terrible idea. They'll survive, but they'll be wiser.
Apple and EA didn't need more PR drama. Welcome to the yet another battle in the war of (signed) 'Apps' vs our old notions of software.
Plus, EA certainly doesn't need any more bad publicity after Mass Effect 3 and all their release day DLC drama.
Plus, EA certainly doesn't need any more bad publicity after Mass Effect 3 and all their release day DLC drama.
Someone brought-up an interesting point: The thought of your entire iBooks or Kindle book library evaporating is a sobering one.
Will all of this be around in twenty or thirty years? I have physical books that are nearly 100 years old in my library. They don't require a third party to exist in order to be usable.
These kinds of things make you re-think some of these ideas.
Another place where this happens much faster is power tools. I still have a number of excellent power tools that are easily 15 to 20 years old. Sawzall, drill, router, biscuit joiner, circular saw, etc.
All of them have a chord and are AC powered.
None of the battery powered tools I bought long ago are around. In some cases the battery packs have been discontinued. In other cases the batteries went bad and the replacement cost for the obsolete packs is just too high.
So, if you want to leave tools and books to your kids, you might want to rethink what you are buying. It is possible to imagine that iBooks and Kindle will not be around in 40 to 50 years.
Anyone know what the TOS say about this for both Apple and Amazon? Do you own your books or have they become licenses that can go poof overnight?
Will all of this be around in twenty or thirty years? I have physical books that are nearly 100 years old in my library. They don't require a third party to exist in order to be usable.
These kinds of things make you re-think some of these ideas.
Another place where this happens much faster is power tools. I still have a number of excellent power tools that are easily 15 to 20 years old. Sawzall, drill, router, biscuit joiner, circular saw, etc.
All of them have a chord and are AC powered.
None of the battery powered tools I bought long ago are around. In some cases the battery packs have been discontinued. In other cases the batteries went bad and the replacement cost for the obsolete packs is just too high.
So, if you want to leave tools and books to your kids, you might want to rethink what you are buying. It is possible to imagine that iBooks and Kindle will not be around in 40 to 50 years.
Anyone know what the TOS say about this for both Apple and Amazon? Do you own your books or have they become licenses that can go poof overnight?
In the case of Amazon at least, the DRM on Kindle ebooks is ludicrously easy to crack. Every book I purchase, I crack - both for self-preservation (the removal of 1984 from every device it was installed on was worrying), and because not being able to share frustrates me.
More than games, music, etc., not being able to share books drives me crazy. Everyone in my flat has a small library; we share our books between eachother. When we started getting Kindles, that was stymied: after reading the first book in the Void trilogy on paper, I was unable to let my flatmate (who read the first book after me) read the second book - because I bought it on Kindle. That was... well, lame.
So now, I manage my Kindle with Calibre. Every book I buy gets cracked.
More than games, music, etc., not being able to share books drives me crazy. Everyone in my flat has a small library; we share our books between eachother. When we started getting Kindles, that was stymied: after reading the first book in the Void trilogy on paper, I was unable to let my flatmate (who read the first book after me) read the second book - because I bought it on Kindle. That was... well, lame.
So now, I manage my Kindle with Calibre. Every book I buy gets cracked.
listen, if you want to get rid of DRM legally and as soon as possible, the only reasonable way is not to crack, but to boycott DRM laden ebooks, plain and simple. That's what I do. It's annoying but it's the price to pay if you want things to be what's right and not what egoistically please you more.
Either you are buying off a different Amazon store or there's some new Topaz DRM decryption scheme. As far as I know, most current Kindle books aren't crackable.
I've had one Kindle book recently that Calibre wasn't able to crack automatically. It was a Kindle print replica textbook which I bought to read on my Touchpad in class. Turns out when they say "PC/Mac/iPad Compatible", they really mean ONLY PC/Mac/iPad. Android Kindle apps can't read them. I spent the entire weekend cracking their various obfuscation methods to find out it was a DRM'd PDF wrapped in a Palm Database format container. When I got it completely stripped, it was a straight PDF with no loss of functionality.
Could they have sold it as a PDF with their normal Kindle DRM? Yes. Would this have been sufficient enough to keep piracy to acceptable levels? Yes. Any miniscule amount of DRM is enough. It's like putting WEP on your router. It will keep out the riff raff (which is good enough for most cases) but anyone who is determined to break your encryption will figure out how to do it. With something like an ebook, I would imagine that 9:1 sales to piracy rate would be realistic, and that's well within acceptable range in my opinion.
Could they have sold it as a PDF with their normal Kindle DRM? Yes. Would this have been sufficient enough to keep piracy to acceptable levels? Yes. Any miniscule amount of DRM is enough. It's like putting WEP on your router. It will keep out the riff raff (which is good enough for most cases) but anyone who is determined to break your encryption will figure out how to do it. With something like an ebook, I would imagine that 9:1 sales to piracy rate would be realistic, and that's well within acceptable range in my opinion.
Hardly new... they're definitely crackable.
This is exactly what I do with my Kobo. I buy EPUB format books and immediately crack the DRM off and load them into Calibre, confident that I'll be able to convert it and load it onto whatever device I may buy in the future.
"re" think? Everything digital is far more ephemeral than their physical counterparts.
Print your favorite photos in black and white on acid free paper if you want them to endure.
Print your favorite photos in black and white on acid free paper if you want them to endure.
I'm interested in collecting links and thoughts on this very issue. Do you need to use special ink on acid-free paper? Is it easy to buy acid-free paper? Have we figured out any good ways for long term just plain data preservation? (let's forget about preserving obsolete encoding formats, for the sake of argument)
I have a number of videos of someone dear to me that I'll never be able to replicate, and I'm very interested in making it last slightly longer than my current harddrive/the lifespan of my amazon S3 backups.
I have half a pg-style-essay on The Great Forgetting kicking around my harddrive. I have this pet theory that future archeologists will have a better conception of 1980s pop culture than what is about to unfold in the decades to come. Or even what's happening right now that large tracts of late 90s/early aughts digital culture is evaporating.
I have a number of videos of someone dear to me that I'll never be able to replicate, and I'm very interested in making it last slightly longer than my current harddrive/the lifespan of my amazon S3 backups.
I have half a pg-style-essay on The Great Forgetting kicking around my harddrive. I have this pet theory that future archeologists will have a better conception of 1980s pop culture than what is about to unfold in the decades to come. Or even what's happening right now that large tracts of late 90s/early aughts digital culture is evaporating.
We are restoring some old family photos and movies - all the black and white photos are fine, but the color photos are fading. All the old cellulite film from the 30s and 40s is pretty much dead, it's just disintegrating. There is no long term preservation besides copying.
All my digital video on tape from the early 2000s is dead. The early DVDs I burned in 2002-2004 are all dead (due to the organic dye, I guess). Many of the CDs I burned in the late 90s are dead. The most durable digital format I have has been the 5.25" disks, probably due to their ultra low density.
All my digital video on tape from the early 2000s is dead. The early DVDs I burned in 2002-2004 are all dead (due to the organic dye, I guess). Many of the CDs I burned in the late 90s are dead. The most durable digital format I have has been the 5.25" disks, probably due to their ultra low density.
"Special ink" ;-) There is no ink in traditional printing, no printer as you think of it either. There is silver and there is gelatin embedded in the paper, and you project the film onto it, then wash it in special chemicals to make the projected image permanent.
You can get it done from digital easily enough these days however http://www.ilfordlab.com/
You can get it done from digital easily enough these days however http://www.ilfordlab.com/
It's far from a foolproof process. You have to be careful with choosing paper (RC vs FB is one choice, and RC is much better than it was in the 70's but I wouldn't consider it "archival", some FB paper may be acid free but still contains whitening chemicals which caused problems in the past) and the chemicals and washing process has to be done properly (it's easy to get contamination in the wash water, hypo in the final print will cause fading over time). Then you have to store it properly. If you frame it, you have to worry about the air in the frame -- there are stories of prints framed during building renovation that degraded since the frame trapped air containing chemicals from the construction. Tape is also a serious issue if you use tape (which is the best way to frame prints).
"Permanent" is such a strong word. Sure, 100 years, if you get all of the above right.
Getting well past 100 years is simply not within the range of simple silver gelatin prints; the silver will corrode due to the same process that causes silver jewelry to tarnish. True archival stability requires toning. You have three good options: sulfide, selenium, or gold. Sulfide (or "sepia") has a striking brown color which reminds you of old photographs. That's because only the old photographs which were toned survived -- the neutral colored black and white photographs faded long ago. Selenium has a more mellow black/brown color depending on the dilution, and can be made fairly neutral. It is generally preferred over sulfide. Gold, on the other hand, provides a slightly cooler tone (blue or green is possible, if you use enough of it) but it's expensive enough that the cost of the gold can be a significant fraction of the material cost. (Old gold-toned photos survive too, but they're rarer.) (Not all toners increase permanence, e.g., iron-based toners can give you a cheaper blue than using gold but they're water-soluble.)
On the other hand, an inkjet can be loaded with carbon-based pigments. Carbon-based pigments can be found on cave paintings in France dating back 32,000 years, so they should be stable enough.
I have no doubt that a good inkjet print with carbon-based inks will outlast all of my darkroom prints. In my mind, color inkjet prints have far surpassed color darkroom prints, but that's not as hard as it sounds.
"Permanent" is such a strong word. Sure, 100 years, if you get all of the above right.
Getting well past 100 years is simply not within the range of simple silver gelatin prints; the silver will corrode due to the same process that causes silver jewelry to tarnish. True archival stability requires toning. You have three good options: sulfide, selenium, or gold. Sulfide (or "sepia") has a striking brown color which reminds you of old photographs. That's because only the old photographs which were toned survived -- the neutral colored black and white photographs faded long ago. Selenium has a more mellow black/brown color depending on the dilution, and can be made fairly neutral. It is generally preferred over sulfide. Gold, on the other hand, provides a slightly cooler tone (blue or green is possible, if you use enough of it) but it's expensive enough that the cost of the gold can be a significant fraction of the material cost. (Old gold-toned photos survive too, but they're rarer.) (Not all toners increase permanence, e.g., iron-based toners can give you a cheaper blue than using gold but they're water-soluble.)
On the other hand, an inkjet can be loaded with carbon-based pigments. Carbon-based pigments can be found on cave paintings in France dating back 32,000 years, so they should be stable enough.
I have no doubt that a good inkjet print with carbon-based inks will outlast all of my darkroom prints. In my mind, color inkjet prints have far surpassed color darkroom prints, but that's not as hard as it sounds.
The library of congress is cataloging all of our tweets. We'll be just fine.
ok, that raises an interesting question: what is the most ink-economic printing encoding for digital data?
For example, I want to print a PNG file, instead of printing out the picture, I want to preserve its original files hex codes, instead of printing some SVG curves, I would print its XML source instead. Instead of printing formulas, I would print the LaTex source code directly. This could be lossless data printing.
What would be the most effeciant, ink-saving, and easy to recognize, and error-preventing serialization format for printing?
For example, I want to print a PNG file, instead of printing out the picture, I want to preserve its original files hex codes, instead of printing some SVG curves, I would print its XML source instead. Instead of printing formulas, I would print the LaTex source code directly. This could be lossless data printing.
What would be the most effeciant, ink-saving, and easy to recognize, and error-preventing serialization format for printing?
Something like a series of high-density QR code sounds like it could work. You'd get free error correction. But at this point I think I'd go for microfiche rather than paper.
Edit: http://lwn.net/Articles/242735/
Edit: http://lwn.net/Articles/242735/
Yes, this is why I store PDFs on archival optical media with the C code to parse the PDF. I really need a good (as in compact) epub reader to keep with my OReilly library though. Any pointers appreciated.
An epub file is just a zip archive containing HTML files and a manifest. You could probably get away with just epub and something to unzip them with.
I'm assuming that HTML renderers will be around for a while, though. If you're feeling paranoid, throw in a copy of lynx or a quick script to strip out all of the tags :).
I'm assuming that HTML renderers will be around for a while, though. If you're feeling paranoid, throw in a copy of lynx or a quick script to strip out all of the tags :).
In thirty years, C code may be a goofy relic of ages past that is difficult to get going.
(Yeah yeah, you're probably thinking C is eternal. But I'm sure people swore that older languages would survive no matter what.)
(Yeah yeah, you're probably thinking C is eternal. But I'm sure people swore that older languages would survive no matter what.)
45 years later and I'm still waiting for something better than Unix and convoluted shell scripting. But what do you know, it's still around, it's still in production almost everywhere, and it's still required learning at schools.
If something is going to replace the best tool for the job, it will have to be a lot better than "better". Not that it hasn't happened before, but in these two cases, it hasn't happened yet.
If something is going to replace the best tool for the job, it will have to be a lot better than "better". Not that it hasn't happened before, but in these two cases, it hasn't happened yet.
On the Starship Enterprise, the payroll will still be done in COBOL.
[deleted]
Older languages as widespread as C did survive and will haunt us forever and ever.
Apologies for being cynical, but you can guarantee that things will be 'no longer supported' etc in the future.. purely by the planned obsolescence of the capitalist system.
I work in the book trade and while we may see a shift in 20-30 years - certain things will never disappear - coffee table books, most kids books, drawing books etc. "Mainstream" (whatever that means) authors may become virtually exclusively electronic.
Personally I like to look at my bookshelves and what is there - and enjoy viewing others.
I work in the book trade and while we may see a shift in 20-30 years - certain things will never disappear - coffee table books, most kids books, drawing books etc. "Mainstream" (whatever that means) authors may become virtually exclusively electronic.
Personally I like to look at my bookshelves and what is there - and enjoy viewing others.
> Will all of this be around in twenty or thirty years?
I actually have the opposite theory. Will books be around in 20 or 30 years? I mean, books that exist now will continue to exist. But will new ones continue to be printed? Will it continue to exist as a format?
I am an early adopter, but a growing fraction of things I read simply do not come in dead-tree format. We are approaching a singularity where today's hardbacks becomes tomorrow's paperbacks--something to do when demand is higher than anticipated.
I am with you when you are concerned about DRM and how long your iPad will last. But I think DRM-free PDF and ePub are a lot more futureproof than paper. Imagine if your house catches on fire--do you even have a list of books to put on the insurance form? Whereas, I have all my books backed up with geographic redundancy.
Disclaimer: I've scanned all my books, http://sealedabstract.com/lifehacking/the-joy-of-electronic-...
I actually have the opposite theory. Will books be around in 20 or 30 years? I mean, books that exist now will continue to exist. But will new ones continue to be printed? Will it continue to exist as a format?
I am an early adopter, but a growing fraction of things I read simply do not come in dead-tree format. We are approaching a singularity where today's hardbacks becomes tomorrow's paperbacks--something to do when demand is higher than anticipated.
I am with you when you are concerned about DRM and how long your iPad will last. But I think DRM-free PDF and ePub are a lot more futureproof than paper. Imagine if your house catches on fire--do you even have a list of books to put on the insurance form? Whereas, I have all my books backed up with geographic redundancy.
Disclaimer: I've scanned all my books, http://sealedabstract.com/lifehacking/the-joy-of-electronic-...
With current technology, physical media is still more robust for the effort expended. If you throw a book on a shelf, it will be there in 50 years except in the event of a house-destroying catastrophe (which hopefully insurance would cover). No thought required. In fact, my son could discover it decades after I'm dead, with no other communication between us.
Current digital solutions, however, require more or less constant upkeep. Physical media such as hard drives, DVDs and flash is susceptible to both catastrophic failure and bit rot with a half life of only about 5 years (in my experience). Online storage services which outsource the task of redundant maintained storage avoid this, but to protect yourself from services going defunct you need to have your data on multiple services and keep them constantly synced.
In short, if you stop actively backing up/maintaining your data for even a few years, chances are you'll loose it.
I think there's also discoverability issues with digital media in its current incarnation, but that's another discussion.
Current digital solutions, however, require more or less constant upkeep. Physical media such as hard drives, DVDs and flash is susceptible to both catastrophic failure and bit rot with a half life of only about 5 years (in my experience). Online storage services which outsource the task of redundant maintained storage avoid this, but to protect yourself from services going defunct you need to have your data on multiple services and keep them constantly synced.
In short, if you stop actively backing up/maintaining your data for even a few years, chances are you'll loose it.
I think there's also discoverability issues with digital media in its current incarnation, but that's another discussion.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb made the point in a recent antifragility lecture that if a technology is robust enough to have survived X years and is still in use, it almost assuredly will be around X years from now. By that metric, use of printed books has a minimum of 500 years of life remaining, if not more (depending on your definition of the underlying technology of books). In contrast, look at the fragility of the systems that sustain ebooks, starting with the computing hardware supply chain.
An interesting thought experiment is to think of what it would take for ebooks to become as robust or as antifragile as physical books. For instance, would it require the hardware, power supply, and content to fuse into a form as cheap and ubiquitous as paper (and manufacturing of such hardware within the realm of anyone)? What could enable that? A breakthrough in self-replicating 3D printers that are capable of using recyclable material as printer stock?
An interesting thought experiment is to think of what it would take for ebooks to become as robust or as antifragile as physical books. For instance, would it require the hardware, power supply, and content to fuse into a form as cheap and ubiquitous as paper (and manufacturing of such hardware within the realm of anyone)? What could enable that? A breakthrough in self-replicating 3D printers that are capable of using recyclable material as printer stock?
My comment is not at all about which is the better archival medium. Nothing in your reply addresses my thesis that dead-tree books will cease to be produced for new content, and in fact have been already in many cases.
Dead-tree paper can only really be advantageous as you propose if you consider the cost of producing the physical artifact (printing, binding, shipping) a sunk cost. It may be a sunk cost in 1995, but my thesis is that it will not be a sunk cost in 2030. Stated alternately, it may be a better archival medium, but most books are not purchased on the basis of being reliable archives.
Although independent of the main premise, I do object to bit rot as being applicable to books. My library of ebooks spans 25GB, an amount that pales in comparison to my music collection, which normal people all have in digital format. 25GB can be backed up in minutes a year, and is far less than the effort people extend to climate-control a collection of dead trees and cart it around during moves.
Would you be open to a long bet on this topic?
Dead-tree paper can only really be advantageous as you propose if you consider the cost of producing the physical artifact (printing, binding, shipping) a sunk cost. It may be a sunk cost in 1995, but my thesis is that it will not be a sunk cost in 2030. Stated alternately, it may be a better archival medium, but most books are not purchased on the basis of being reliable archives.
Although independent of the main premise, I do object to bit rot as being applicable to books. My library of ebooks spans 25GB, an amount that pales in comparison to my music collection, which normal people all have in digital format. 25GB can be backed up in minutes a year, and is far less than the effort people extend to climate-control a collection of dead trees and cart it around during moves.
Would you be open to a long bet on this topic?
All of your images seem to be 0 bytes.
I have bought a kindle, upon which are stored many books.
I have also bought many physical books.
Have I purchased any kindle books? Well, only if they aren't available in physical form.
I am confused by people who believe that things on the internet are any sort of permanent - or private, but that's another matter entirely.
Have I purchased any kindle books? Well, only if they aren't available in physical form.
I am confused by people who believe that things on the internet are any sort of permanent - or private, but that's another matter entirely.
Most of the battery packs for tools are proprietary shells around completely standard cells inside. If you can open the plastic shell without destroying it, you can just replace the cells, usually for less than the manufacturer wants for the whole thing. And maybe 3-d printing would allow case replacement.
The usual "NiCad" and "NiMH" batteries are straight-forward to replace, but lithium-based batteries can be dangerous. They'll explode if not properly charged and have electronics paired to the cell to manage the charging cycle.
I'd be extremely careful when hacking lithium batteries. If you must, follow a guide (http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/) and be very careful.
When things go wrong, the results are spectacular (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3o_2mwRPdw).
I'd be extremely careful when hacking lithium batteries. If you must, follow a guide (http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/) and be very careful.
When things go wrong, the results are spectacular (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3o_2mwRPdw).
"Will all of this be around in twenty or thirty years?"
No.
No.
Doesn't this violate Apple's policy? If not, has this happened in the past?
On the face of it, having an application which explicitly "expires" at some point in the future is a violation of (currently) point 11.9 of the App Store Review Guidelines:
11.9. Apps containing "rental" content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected.
What this means for applications like Rock Band that spontaneously turn into expiring services remains to be determined.
11.9. Apps containing "rental" content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected.
What this means for applications like Rock Band that spontaneously turn into expiring services remains to be determined.
Practically, it doesn't seem like there is any way to force a company to keep their servers running to support a game forever, no matter what the policy is.
They could threaten EA's other apps, though, or perhaps refund all purchases for the game.
Rock Band isn't a multiplayer game and shouldn't need any servers to play.
"Shouldn't" and "doesn't" are different concepts though. Just as you can't reasonably "force" EA to continue operating a service forever, you can't go back in time to make them architect it properly either.
This is inevitable in the modern world. We want to allow for people to pay for software. We want software to engage with the broader world. Having those two things at once inevitably leads to a situation where software breaks because its "managers" don't want to maintain that engagement anymore.
So pick one of those two and throw it out: make all services pay-for-play instead of one-time-fee. Or disallow non-standalone apps. (Or I guess a third option would be to force the customer and app vendor to sign a contract with a service level agreement). None of those seem workable to me.
This is inevitable in the modern world. We want to allow for people to pay for software. We want software to engage with the broader world. Having those two things at once inevitably leads to a situation where software breaks because its "managers" don't want to maintain that engagement anymore.
So pick one of those two and throw it out: make all services pay-for-play instead of one-time-fee. Or disallow non-standalone apps. (Or I guess a third option would be to force the customer and app vendor to sign a contract with a service level agreement). None of those seem workable to me.
I worry that you might be right, but it seems to me like we're moving towards a Soviet economic model where we fleece the users today and disable the services tomorrow. It would not have occurred to me that applications installed on my phone might one day vanish due to the publisher not wanting to support them. I don't have this game, but I don't think it's likely that I would have expected this behavior. Acting like this is a normal, acceptable business practice when it is basically unprecedented in our field is not going to discourage the behavior. Between this and various cloud offerings vanishing after acquisition or because Google or whoever doesn't feel like supporting them, I think we're entering an era where software as a service has become software as a means for fly-by-night companies to defraud users and destroy their trust.
Apple can't "force" EA to architect it properly, but they can refund everyone who purchased the game and/or punish EA in any way they see fit.
Which raises the question of what is a reasonable expected lifetime of an application? If, say, my app stops working in a future iOS update years from now and I take no action to update it, should those customers still expect a full refund even though they've used my app for years already?
Assuming you weren't doing anything sneaky, I think not, because Apple (at least theoretically) takes responsibility for not breaking compliant applications with updates. There's a world of difference between Apple breaking your app and you breaking your app.
There seems to be a parallel with other warranty/consumer protection laws here.
In the UK, for example, we have laws like the Sale of Goods Act, under which anything you buy firsthand must meet certain criteria such as being fit for the purpose it was sold for. If it isn't, you are typically entitled to a repair/replacement/refund. However, that need not necessarily be a full refund or replacement with a brand new equivalent, depending on the circumstances.
Typically, if a physical product is found to be faulty within six months of purchase, the onus is on the merchant to prove that it was not faulty when it was bought. After that, the burden shifts somewhat, but the merchant can still be liable for fixing a problem even a few years after the original purchase if the item would normally be expected to last that long. As time goes by, the amount of a refund you might be entitled to receive if the product breaks and isn't be repaired or replaced instead would tend to diminish, to reflect the value you have already received from the use of the product before it broke.
Usually, in physical product world, a court could make a fair determination of how long something might reasonably be expected to last based on the general market, the original purchase price, etc. Of course with software it's harder, because bits don't magically break, but on the other hand there are platform compatibility issues to consider.
As you say, that raises the question of what is a reasonable expected lifetime. If we're talking about pure content -- an e-book, music, a movie, etc. -- then I would argue the answer is "forever". If someone has paid for the content, in the expectation that it was a full purchase and not for example a rental or all-you-can-watch fixed-time subscription, then there is simply no excuse for ever deactivating the product after the purchase.
If we're talking about executable code in an application, then I would argue that the answer must be as a minimum "as long as the supporting platform is available", where by supporting platform I mean the device/OS/etc. necessary to run the code, and not including any sort of artificial dependency introduced exclusively or primarily for the purpose of allowing the software to be disabled in the future. If there is a legitimate dependency on some system outside the consumer's personal control, for example a centralised server used to co-ordinate a multiplayer game and operated at the game developer's expense, then I wouldn't have a problem with a system whereby the dependency was OK but anyone who wanted to maintain the usual legal protections for software would have to leave in escrow a version of the software that allowed third party systems to replace such dependencies if and when the original systems ceased to be available.
In the UK, for example, we have laws like the Sale of Goods Act, under which anything you buy firsthand must meet certain criteria such as being fit for the purpose it was sold for. If it isn't, you are typically entitled to a repair/replacement/refund. However, that need not necessarily be a full refund or replacement with a brand new equivalent, depending on the circumstances.
Typically, if a physical product is found to be faulty within six months of purchase, the onus is on the merchant to prove that it was not faulty when it was bought. After that, the burden shifts somewhat, but the merchant can still be liable for fixing a problem even a few years after the original purchase if the item would normally be expected to last that long. As time goes by, the amount of a refund you might be entitled to receive if the product breaks and isn't be repaired or replaced instead would tend to diminish, to reflect the value you have already received from the use of the product before it broke.
Usually, in physical product world, a court could make a fair determination of how long something might reasonably be expected to last based on the general market, the original purchase price, etc. Of course with software it's harder, because bits don't magically break, but on the other hand there are platform compatibility issues to consider.
As you say, that raises the question of what is a reasonable expected lifetime. If we're talking about pure content -- an e-book, music, a movie, etc. -- then I would argue the answer is "forever". If someone has paid for the content, in the expectation that it was a full purchase and not for example a rental or all-you-can-watch fixed-time subscription, then there is simply no excuse for ever deactivating the product after the purchase.
If we're talking about executable code in an application, then I would argue that the answer must be as a minimum "as long as the supporting platform is available", where by supporting platform I mean the device/OS/etc. necessary to run the code, and not including any sort of artificial dependency introduced exclusively or primarily for the purpose of allowing the software to be disabled in the future. If there is a legitimate dependency on some system outside the consumer's personal control, for example a centralised server used to co-ordinate a multiplayer game and operated at the game developer's expense, then I wouldn't have a problem with a system whereby the dependency was OK but anyone who wanted to maintain the usual legal protections for software would have to leave in escrow a version of the software that allowed third party systems to replace such dependencies if and when the original systems ceased to be available.
If I had to put a valid reason to this instead of simply declaring that EA are dicks (which is still true but...), I'd guess that the rights on the songs expired and they are no longer legally allowed to distribute them.
Think about it. It would be even more scummy of them to leave the app up for download with no way to pull the songs required to play the game down from the cloud.
It's shitty either way, especially if you just bought the app but, I don't see a good way out of it.
Think about it. It would be even more scummy of them to leave the app up for download with no way to pull the songs required to play the game down from the cloud.
It's shitty either way, especially if you just bought the app but, I don't see a good way out of it.
There is a middle ground. They can pull the app from the store, but it is still playable on people devices. It's not great, but it's a lot better than "you can't play this game anymore even though it's installed."
And it seems fairly ridiculous that EA would not get rights that last for the life of a single product. They've been doing song licensing for 10+ years now.
And it seems fairly ridiculous that EA would not get rights that last for the life of a single product. They've been doing song licensing for 10+ years now.
If the songs are in the cloud that middle ground doesn't work.
The songs aren't on the cloud, as the game works perfectly on an ipod touch when wifi is disabled.
The problem is games requiring "authentication servers" to do anything. The general thought has been when these servers were removed the last act of the company would be to release an update that disabled the requirement of the servers... however this has never really happened.
It frustrates me as thanks to tools like DosBox I am still playing games on my Mac that I first played years ago (Master of Orion 2 specifically). There is a distinct possibility that every game you purchase will no longer work in 5 years between DRM'd executable, proprietary platforms and authentication servers.
The problem is games requiring "authentication servers" to do anything. The general thought has been when these servers were removed the last act of the company would be to release an update that disabled the requirement of the servers... however this has never really happened.
It frustrates me as thanks to tools like DosBox I am still playing games on my Mac that I first played years ago (Master of Orion 2 specifically). There is a distinct possibility that every game you purchase will no longer work in 5 years between DRM'd executable, proprietary platforms and authentication servers.
Don't you have to pull the songs down at least once though?
EA sold you a copy of the song along with a license to use that song in the context of playing the game. If the copy was sold with a stipulation that you could not use the copy after a certain period of time that's fine, but that's not what happened. If EA was sending out copies of songs that it didn't have the right to do under its licensing agreements, then it sounds like people could probably easily sue to get the money the paid for DLC back (since the transaction was fraudulent as EA didn't have the right to sell what it sold, though ianal).
Negotiating rights in such a way that leaves you open to this, then selling the app when you know you might have to pull it due to licensing, is not really any better.
Assuming the songs are on the phone, it should fail gracefully
Any functions requiring server access should inform you that they are no longer available, while the game bit itself should still be playable
Obviously login wouldn't work any more, they should offer one final upgrade to let users use the app without logging in
Any functions requiring server access should inform you that they are no longer available, while the game bit itself should still be playable
Obviously login wouldn't work any more, they should offer one final upgrade to let users use the app without logging in
Remember some years back Belkin sold a router that would randomly replace web page requests with redirects to ads for their products? I haven't purchased any Belkin products since. I may not purchase any more EA products for similar reasons.
[deleted]
Hopefully Apple nails them to the wall on this.