6 ms·

I encourage developers to wait for a more open platform before jumping on the VR bandwagon. We don't need Google to curate VR apps for us. The PC did just fine

I encourage developers to wait for a more open platform before jumping on the VR bandwagon. We don't need Google to curate VR apps for us. The PC did just fine with anyone being able to develop and distribute whatever kind of app they wanted, in fact it created far more business opportunity for developers than mobile ever did. We screwed up when it came to mobile by letting Google and Apple get away with their land grabs. Now we're paying them until the end of time for the privilege of being able to market our own software. We don't need Google owning and taxing this space as well.

gman83 10y ago
What? The PC didn't do fine with distributing software at all, at least not before Steam came along. On Linux the situation was ok with package managers like apt, but on Windows it was terrible. You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system. Google Play/Steam/iOS App Store may be a tax, but let's not pretend something similar isn't necessary.
- oblio 10y ago
  For a long time we needed DVDs not just because online installs were not available, but because broadband internet wasn't widely available. It was hardly a nice experience to have to wait 12-24 hours to download a game. Steam was a little ahead of the curve, true. And regarding updates, the OS makers could just create an official update library that everyone can use. App Stores are just an OS maker powerplay, a cash grab.
  - modeless 10y ago
    > App Stores are just an OS maker powerplay, a cash grab. Steam is an app store that users and developers choose voluntarily. It provides huge value. App stores are what users and developers want.
    - oblio 10y ago
      Steam is an optional app store. The rest are not.
      - bitJericho 10y ago
        I buy most of my favorite aaa games in the box, outside of steam. GTA5 was my latest buy. I love having that choice to own something irl.
    - a_imho 10y ago
      >App stores are what users and developers want. There are two sides of the coin, but imo there are far less people benefiting from walled gardens.
    - Razengan 10y ago
      > App stores are what users and developers want. This. As a user since the days of DOS I've always wanted a unified repository for software and updates. As an amateur developer I want my users to get my stuff from a trusted source and I don't want to host my own servers or update mechanism.
    - izacus 10y ago
      > App stores are what users and developers want. reply Which parts of app stores? Distribution? Payment processing? Discoverability? Search? DRM? Forced policing of content? Not being able to publish adult or any kind of political content? Don't make a beginners mistake of mixing people wanting a FEW benefits for ALL the people wanting ALL the properties of a product .
      - Kurtz79 10y ago
        Convenience. I have been a PC gamer since the early 90s, and being able to buy a game and have it on my PC with the latest patch in a matter of minutes provides enough benefits to make me ignore the downsides. I certainly do no represent ALL users, but since Steam is so successful (when most games sold there can be bought though alternative means), it is a reasonable assumption that it provides value to many of them.
  - 72deluxe 10y ago
    I remember buying PC Plus every month so I could get the free software on the front. Downloading any software via dialup was horrible, hence all those CDs and DVDs I got. Steam is a very recent development.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  software != games distribution != online distribution The big PC developer boom happened in the mid-90s, facilitated by Windows 95 and Visual Basic. Anyone who knew a little about coding could put together a product and ship it on CD or floppy disk. The current fad for app stores has pluses and minuses, but there's no particular advantage for developers in Google limiting access to VR - especially not if that horrendous screen at the top of the article is a good indication of what Google has in mind. Developers always benefit when marketplaces are open and initial cost of access is low - in money, if not necessarily in time. So do platforms. It's by far the best way to get a lot of creative software for a relatively small outlay.
  - maccard 10y ago
    > Developers always benefit when marketplaces are open and initial cost of access is low - in money, if not necessarily in time I don't agree. The open market platform for mobile devices has resulted in a race to the bottom.
    - roblabla 10y ago
      Except the market isn't open ? It's a walled garden kept by Apple/Google.
    - kybernetyk 10y ago
      The race to the bottom only happened because there wasn't much differentiation between the apps people were developing. 10 todo apps is plenty, 100 is more than enough, 1000+ is what we had. That's why people started competing on price. And every business owner/entrepreneur can tell you that competing on price is a game you don't want to be playing. There's enough successful mobile apps that charge $20+ - but they are not trivial TODO clones but specialized applications.
      - 72deluxe 10y ago
        This is very true. Competing on price is the only solution if you cannot compete on features or value (that is, value of your software to the end user).
- kybernetyk 10y ago
  I don't know. I had my little shareware programs up for download in 1998. Software thrived on the PC since its original inception. I remember swapping shareware diskettes with my friends back when we had no reasonable access to the internet. Hell, even DOOM was released as shareware. A lack of infrastructure is not the same as a bunch of gatekeepers you have to pay for the possibility to distribute your software. Today distributing mobile apps would be highly trivial as every smartphone is connected to the internet. But there are artificial limitations put in place by platform "owners" so they can "curate" the software. Call me dumb but from a freedom perspective I would prefer the 1998 situation to what we have now with mobile.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    >Call me dumb but from a freedom perspective I would prefer the 1998 situation to what we have now with mobile. The price of the Apple store comes in against the risk of malware downloads as I google for "speedfan.net" and end up with 2 new shopping toolbars and a mitm ad inserter for my browser. (I imagine there's a similar possibility when Sideloading android apks vs getting from the play store) Sure, freedom is great and all - but there are some gnarly consequences (especially for non expert users) which often result in less security.
    - kybernetyk 10y ago
      >Sure, freedom is great and all - but there are some gnarly consequences (especially for non expert users) which often result in less security. So because some people don't know better and download suspicious-file.exe all our freedoms should be limited?
      - mc32 10y ago
        It's a problem. Not only tech illiterate people get tricked. People who know better get tricked. Now, it's worthwhile asking whether one favors one over the other, but to say one choice is pro freedom and the other anti freedom is hyperbole and does not advance the issue either way.
      - 10y ago
- serge2k 10y ago
  > You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system. And it worked fine.
amelius 10y ago
There's one thing worse than the government regulating a market: a company regulating it :)
mastax 10y ago
I agree in general, but there is a danger here as poorly made VR apps can make people physically ill. Not "I feel uncomfortable" ill but "I can't do anything for the next 8 hours" ill.

gman83 10y ago

What? The PC didn't do fine with distributing software at all, at least not before Steam came along. On Linux the situation was ok with package managers like apt, but on Windows it was terrible. You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system. Google Play/Steam/iOS App Store may be a tax, but let's not pretend something similar isn't necessary.

oblio 10y ago
For a long time we needed DVDs not just because online installs were not available, but because broadband internet wasn't widely available. It was hardly a nice experience to have to wait 12-24 hours to download a game. Steam was a little ahead of the curve, true. And regarding updates, the OS makers could just create an official update library that everyone can use. App Stores are just an OS maker powerplay, a cash grab.
- modeless 10y ago
  > App Stores are just an OS maker powerplay, a cash grab. Steam is an app store that users and developers choose voluntarily. It provides huge value. App stores are what users and developers want.
  - oblio 10y ago
    Steam is an optional app store. The rest are not.
    - bitJericho 10y ago
      I buy most of my favorite aaa games in the box, outside of steam. GTA5 was my latest buy. I love having that choice to own something irl.
  - a_imho 10y ago
    >App stores are what users and developers want. There are two sides of the coin, but imo there are far less people benefiting from walled gardens.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    > App stores are what users and developers want. This. As a user since the days of DOS I've always wanted a unified repository for software and updates. As an amateur developer I want my users to get my stuff from a trusted source and I don't want to host my own servers or update mechanism.
  - izacus 10y ago
    > App stores are what users and developers want. reply Which parts of app stores? Distribution? Payment processing? Discoverability? Search? DRM? Forced policing of content? Not being able to publish adult or any kind of political content? Don't make a beginners mistake of mixing people wanting a FEW benefits for ALL the people wanting ALL the properties of a product .
    - Kurtz79 10y ago
      Convenience. I have been a PC gamer since the early 90s, and being able to buy a game and have it on my PC with the latest patch in a matter of minutes provides enough benefits to make me ignore the downsides. I certainly do no represent ALL users, but since Steam is so successful (when most games sold there can be bought though alternative means), it is a reasonable assumption that it provides value to many of them.
- 72deluxe 10y ago
  I remember buying PC Plus every month so I could get the free software on the front. Downloading any software via dialup was horrible, hence all those CDs and DVDs I got. Steam is a very recent development.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
software != games distribution != online distribution The big PC developer boom happened in the mid-90s, facilitated by Windows 95 and Visual Basic. Anyone who knew a little about coding could put together a product and ship it on CD or floppy disk. The current fad for app stores has pluses and minuses, but there's no particular advantage for developers in Google limiting access to VR - especially not if that horrendous screen at the top of the article is a good indication of what Google has in mind. Developers always benefit when marketplaces are open and initial cost of access is low - in money, if not necessarily in time. So do platforms. It's by far the best way to get a lot of creative software for a relatively small outlay.
- maccard 10y ago
  > Developers always benefit when marketplaces are open and initial cost of access is low - in money, if not necessarily in time I don't agree. The open market platform for mobile devices has resulted in a race to the bottom.
  - roblabla 10y ago
    Except the market isn't open ? It's a walled garden kept by Apple/Google.
  - kybernetyk 10y ago
    The race to the bottom only happened because there wasn't much differentiation between the apps people were developing. 10 todo apps is plenty, 100 is more than enough, 1000+ is what we had. That's why people started competing on price. And every business owner/entrepreneur can tell you that competing on price is a game you don't want to be playing. There's enough successful mobile apps that charge $20+ - but they are not trivial TODO clones but specialized applications.
    - 72deluxe 10y ago
      This is very true. Competing on price is the only solution if you cannot compete on features or value (that is, value of your software to the end user).
kybernetyk 10y ago
I don't know. I had my little shareware programs up for download in 1998. Software thrived on the PC since its original inception. I remember swapping shareware diskettes with my friends back when we had no reasonable access to the internet. Hell, even DOOM was released as shareware. A lack of infrastructure is not the same as a bunch of gatekeepers you have to pay for the possibility to distribute your software. Today distributing mobile apps would be highly trivial as every smartphone is connected to the internet. But there are artificial limitations put in place by platform "owners" so they can "curate" the software. Call me dumb but from a freedom perspective I would prefer the 1998 situation to what we have now with mobile.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  >Call me dumb but from a freedom perspective I would prefer the 1998 situation to what we have now with mobile. The price of the Apple store comes in against the risk of malware downloads as I google for "speedfan.net" and end up with 2 new shopping toolbars and a mitm ad inserter for my browser. (I imagine there's a similar possibility when Sideloading android apks vs getting from the play store) Sure, freedom is great and all - but there are some gnarly consequences (especially for non expert users) which often result in less security.
  - kybernetyk 10y ago
    >Sure, freedom is great and all - but there are some gnarly consequences (especially for non expert users) which often result in less security. So because some people don't know better and download suspicious-file.exe all our freedoms should be limited?
    - mc32 10y ago
      It's a problem. Not only tech illiterate people get tricked. People who know better get tricked. Now, it's worthwhile asking whether one favors one over the other, but to say one choice is pro freedom and the other anti freedom is hyperbole and does not advance the issue either way.
    - 10y ago
serge2k 10y ago
> You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system. And it worked fine.

amelius 10y ago

There's one thing worse than the government regulating a market: a company regulating it :)

mastax 10y ago

I agree in general, but there is a danger here as poorly made VR apps can make people physically ill. Not "I feel uncomfortable" ill but "I can't do anything for the next 8 hours" ill.