I think everyone is recognizing that mobile gaming is on the rise, and I am not talking about PSVita or 3DS. As more and more tablets make their way into the hands of consumers, gaming is becoming more common on the platform. Agawi has decided to bring a platform to allow developers to deploy existing Windows and web games to "iPads, Android devices, Windows 8 tablets, smart TVs, PCs, Macs and more."
This new platform, dubbed CloudPlay, requires no special work on the part of the developer. This is good news for indie game developers, who usually have little to no capital to work with. The platform relies on server conversion, streaming the game directly to your device. The platform allows for game trials, freemium and full-pay business models, allowing for almost any type of game to be ported.
This is not the first time streaming gaming has been launched. There was big-name
OnLive, who has had troubles, trying a full corporate reboot, so far unsuccessfully. One of their products was a mobile streaming service, which never took off. Now, OnLive suffered from early lag on their servers and was never able to move out from under that cloud.
If Agawi wants to be successful in this industry, their lag will need to be low right from the beginning. There is no room for a botched launch, and if you need proof, call
John Riccitello formerly of Electronic Arts. As a developer, I certainly like the idea of code once, deploy everywhere, especially for games, which have a different user interaction model from standard apps; what I don't enjoy is my user experience being damaged by something outside of my control.
Would you giving mobile game streaming a shot, or has OnLive ruined the concept for a while? Sound off below.
new devices launched in the States this week, and with a recent purchase for one million devices from an unnamed buyer, things look to be going very well for the company formerly known as RIM. It seems the wave of good news has really uplifted BlackBerry's CEO, Thorsten Heins, to the point where he would like to speak up about his competitors.
In an interview with the Australian Financial Review, Heins was quick to talk about Apple and their iPhone no longer being an innovative device. Due to the
problems and repetition we've seen from Apple, we haven't called Apple innovative ever. I mean, they finally included copy and paste in 2010, but more power to you, Heins.
In his interview, Heins said that the iPhone, while innovative years ago, has refused to change and now is no longer the cat's meow.
The rate of innovation is so high in our industry that if you don't innovate at that speed you can be replaced pretty quickly. The user interface on the iPhone, with all due respect for what this invention was all about, is now five years old. The point is that you can never stand still. It is true for us as well.
Granted, until the BlackBerry 10, BlackBerry hasn't really been innovative in the past couple of years, and almost went the way of Palm. Still, the company was pushing the boundaries of technology back in the day, as almost every executive and their mother had a BlackBerry device back in 2003 to 2007. I also want to commend the CEO for not only pointing out that this industry moves so quickly - as we see with the International CES every year - but for also pointing the finger at Apple for refusing to adapt to consumer's needs. As we've said countless times in the past, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a great solution.
A lot of people are now responding to Heins by saying that he's not one to talk and perhaps the new Q10 copies a little off the Heins-quoted five-year-old interface, however he's well within his right to point out the lack of true update to the FruitPhone 5S+. What do you think? Is Heins correct to point this out? Will the BlackBerry Q10 push Apple into maybe really upgrading its product line? Do you agree with us that Apple really isn't innovative? The place to answers all those questions can be found below, in the comments section.
As part of
Andy Rubin's departure from Google, the Android and Chrome OS divisions were merged. While many saw this as a merging of leadership during a vacuum, some saw the beginning of the end for one of Google's operating systems. Since its introduction in 2009, many have wondered why Google would create a second operating environment in Chrome OS, and how long it could survive in an already shrinking marketplace.
The environment, designed to be web-centric like webOS, has had a tremendous amount of trouble gaining any traction with customers, developers and hardware partners. To date, it seems like only Acer and Samsung have attempted Chromebooks, plus Google's own recent entry into the market. Google had hoped that the OS could live in the space being created in the low-power netbook category, but when that market collapsed, so did any hope of a successful Chrome OS.
Unfortunately for Google, that all happened several years ago, and Chrome OS has floundered since. In fact, I would wager that more machines have been sold running android than Chrome OS. That leads us to the odd decision that was creating competing products within the same company. Google has had huge success with Android, on phones, tablets and even some in the netbook space. With all of that success, why would you compete with yourself? It's a little like Microsoft Office and Microsoft Works, both of which had word processors, neither of which could read each other's files early in their life.
That leads to last week's decision to merge the departments for Chrome OS and Android into one. With the duality behind Google's OS strategy, it surely seems to suggest one will go away, but Eric Schmidt, Executive chairman of Google, ensures us that both will continue. He did suggest that the two might have more overlap in the future, however. My guess is that this is a Steve Jobs-level deception and that we will see one of these brands fade away in the future.
Would you be upset if Chrome OS vanished from the face of the Earth? Did you even know there was such a thing? Let us know below.
In a world where appointment television is giving way to services like Hulu and Netflix, HBO GO lives in a weird middle-ground. While HBO GO is a service that allows people to watch HBO programming over the Internet on devices or via browser, it also requires its users to already be subscribed to HBO's cable service to get the service. This alienates a lot of people who are cutting the cord on traditional cable service in favor of these services, not to be augmented by them.
HBO Chief Executive Richard Plepler said,
Right now we have the right model. Maybe HBO GO, with our broadband partners, could evolve.
He suggested that the service could be packaged with Internet packages instead of cable services, allowing non-cable subscribers to access HBO's content. While the existing setup is profitable for HBO, which is not something
other cable stations have been able to say, so circumventing a working model is something that is a scary prospect for the company, but knowing that there is a market that will watch their shows only online is a start.
Seeing companies like Hulu and Netflix launching direct-to-customer original programming over the Internet, such as Hulu's successful series
, is certainly another cause for concern at HBO. The challenge, however, is one that is making the company consider its options, not jump to a hasty decision, like we have seen from other companies in the past.
My personal hope is that we will see HBO GO offered as a stand-alone service that I can subscribe to without having to have HBO's TV service, but not if it causes HBO to stop its original programming over financial issues. How about you? Would you subscribe to HBO GO if it were a Hulu/Netflix/Amazon style service? Let me know in the comments.