Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Fear
  • Member Since Aug 5th, 2007

Are you Fear? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
TUAW.com1 Comment
Engadget2 Comments
WoW2 Comments

Recent Comments:

TUAW Interview: Ambrosia's Andrew Welch on the iPhone update and iToner {TUAW.com}

Oct 3rd 2007 4:56PM Has anyone wondered why a certain subset of the iTunes music store is available as ringtones?

Probably because Apple has contractual obligations to pay the record labels additional money if they repurpose the music to be used for other applications. i.e. ringtones. And that repurposing appears to apply on a song by song basis. Not on the complete catalog of a record label.

And maybe another part of that contract says that Apple must try to the best of their abilities to stop "non-purchased" ringtones from being used on the iphone.

So Apple has two options: don't sell ringtones period and allow 3rd parties to install their own ringtones, or follow their contract obligations with the record labels.

If they don't sell ringtones, then they will make a subset of their users happy.

Or they can sell ringtones. And allow an iTunes user to easily create a custom ringtone for their phone for $2. Selling ringtones will also try to appease the already shakey relationships with record labels who have recently demonstrated that they can do business elsewhere.

If i was in Job's position, it would be a difficult decision to make.

A note to both Apple and iPhone customers on the v1.1.1 update {Engadget}

Oct 1st 2007 6:53PM I am not exactly sure why Apple created a locked phone in the first place. But I am guessing that Apple isn't interested in directly supporting users for every imaginable G3 network in the world and the associated problems. As well as designing a phone that had to account for the limitations and quirkiness of these networks.

But since they have decided to go the locked route, they had to agree to certain restrictions to make this deal with a network partner. And I am guessing that one of these restictions is to stop the phone from being used on other competitors networks to the best of their ability.

So Apple had two choices with respect to unlocked phones: don't relock the iphone and get involved in a big lawsuit with AT&T over their breach of contract or relock the phone and piss off the people that broke the original and well understood terms of usage. In other words, they are in a no-win situation.

On another note, as part of the unlock process, the hackers took advantage of bugs in the iphone O/S to create the jailbreak operation. I am guessing that in order to stop future unlocking of the iphone, Apple had to fix the bug that made jailbreak/unlocking possible. Thus, 3rd party apps were secondarily affected by this unlock fix.

So people that had/want 3rd party apps on their iphone shouldn't be angry with Apple, they should be angry with unlock hackers. They are probably the ones that MADE Apple close the jailbreak loophole.

iPhone update: facts and fiction {Engadget}

Sep 29th 2007 7:45PM I am not exactly sure why Apple created a locked phone in the first place. But I am guessing that Apple isn't interested in directly supporting users for every imaginable network in the world and the associated problems. As well as designing a phone that had to account for the limitations and quirkiness of these networks.

But since they have decided to go the locked route, they had to agree to certain restrictions with the network partner. And I am guessing that one of these restictions is to stop the phone from being used on other networks to the best of their ability.

So Apple had two choices with respect to unlocked phones: don't relock the iphone and get involved in a big lawsuit with AT&T over their contract or relock the phone and piss off the people that broke the original and well understood terms of usage. In other words, they are in a no-win situation.

On another note, as part of the unlock process, the hackers took advantage of bugs in the iphone O/S to create the jailbreak operation. I am guessing that in order to stop future unlocking of the iphone, Apple had to fix the bug that made jailbreak/unlocking possible. Thus, 3rd party apps were secondarily affected by this unlock fix.

So people that had/want 3rd party apps on their iphone shouldn't be angry with Apple, they should be angry with unlock hackers. They are probably the ones that MADE Apple close the jailbreak loophole.

Liveblog: World of Warcraft PvP Panel at BlizzCon {WoW}

Aug 5th 2007 9:12AM A few more items:


The arena 2v2 queue time issue. Of course there are going to be a lot of 2v2 teams playing. How do you solve the problem? You add more arena pvp servers. This isn't the same problem as the other BG's where you have an imbalance of players queueing on each faction. This can be solved with more hardware.

The world pvp issue.. I think everyone agree's that we need more motivation for city raids. But Blizzard also needs to address the current lowbie towns. Right now, 2 lev 70's can totally dominate a town for 30 minutes or more killing all NPCs and making anybody questing in that area impossible. A few well placed lev 70 elite guards would solve this. If people really want to take over a town, it should take a real raid (5-10 high level players). Not 2 lev 70's that one shot lev 45 guards.

Liveblog: World of Warcraft PvP Panel at BlizzCon {WoW}

Aug 5th 2007 8:55AM I still see lots of problems with the BG/PvP system that Blizzard isn't addressing.

A few that come to mind.

They keep stressing the faction war: Alliance v Horde. Can't they see that Horde dominates any BG with less than 15 players and Alliance is dominating a large BG like AV. They want to introduce new BG's that are 10-15 man. Guess who will dominate that one? What fun is it for a particular faction to streamroll another 99% of the time?

Racials as applied to PvP. They need to review these. Some are more useful than others. Ever notice that 90% of horde rogues are undead? That isn't a coincidence.

This new rating requirement for arena weapons. The idea is to stop PvE'ers from ignoring PvE weapons and use PvP weapons instead. Their solution nerfs PvE'ers (which is good) but also nerfs PvP'ers (which is bad). A more direct solution is "This weapon cannot be equipped in PvE instances".

What about the main problem with WSG.. games can last forever. They need to somehow cap the time this game lasts. And worse, if your team gets zero caps, you get no reputation. And about adding new rewards for these BG's? It will be nice to see horde running around with this gear since the alliance wins so little that they will never be able to earn it.