Like Apple, Nintendo is primarily a hardware company that sees their games as a way to get people to invest in their hardware. They're well aware that people would buy their games if they were available on smartphones, but that would undermine their core business, which is selling consoles.
Oddly enough, it's the only song of his for which he [I]doesn't[/I] hold the copyright himself. So, while he enthusiastically supported Cmdr. Hadfield on this, and went to the publisher asking them to grant Hadfield permission, the decision to only do one- or two-year licenses falls on the publisher, not Bowie.
Is it silly? Absolutely. But let's make sure we point the finger where the blame actually falls.
T he key here is that, when the Wii debuted in 2005, they didn't have an online network for it in place, so they licensed one. Another company, Glu, bought that company, and has since then been shutting off service for its customers. Why? No idea, as they're not talking. But presumably Nintendo's current contract is up, they're not getting an option to renew, and modifying games shipped to customers isn't an option.
So the moral of the story here is Nintendo should have better anticipated how online gaming was going to take off when they launched the Wii, and taken responsibility for their own network...but that's already been made painfully obvious to them.
So is this covered under SCORPION STARE, for use by authorized MAGINOT BLUE STARS users, as part of the preparation for CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN, as part of the remaining Special Operations Executive branch, the Laundry Service?
YET ANOTHER UPDATE (5:24 Eastern): Microsoft has confirmed to Kotaku that the "family sharing" and digital cloud library access features that were planned to be in the Xbox One are indeed gone thanks to today's policy reversal. Xbox one users will also apparently have to download a "Day One" patch to enable the offline mode.
Except that most of the free software I use isn't ad-driven. Certainly, Open Office, Paint.Net, and Inkscape aren't adware.
I was more referencing Google's own apps: GMail, Google Docs, Youtube, etc. They're free (well, unless you have a paid business account). This isn't done out of the goodness of Google's heart.
My thinking is that the real reason Android is free is because its developers wanted to use Linux as a base. That pretty much forced them to continue under the GPL.
Not necessarily. As a counter-example, think of webOS, which, while it was still active, was my preferred mobile OS: used Linux, not free, and much of it wasn't open source. Fairly open? Sure: look at how active, even today, the modding community is with webOS, and Open webOS is helping continue it. Running Linux, though, didn't force Palm or HP to give away webOS for free, though.
And quite frankly, I'm glad they did. There's been a lot of stuff that free Android has made possible that would have been a lot more difficult, if not impossible without it: stuff that has nothing to do with Google or even mobile phones.
>>That's the real issue here: free software isn't always or even usually as good as the paid-for alternatives, yet people use free stuff because it's good enough.
Something I've read elsewhere springs to mind: if the product you're using was given to you for free, you're not the customer, you're the product.
That's largely been my distaste with Android in general, and ad-driven software in particular. Unfortunately, ad-driven software on smartphones is starting to become the norm, and Android has become such a "default" in the industry it's hard to go with the competitors (other than Apple's "walled garden", where the fact that you're a product is just as apparent).
It's worth than that: reading OOTB's blog while believing in copyright sanity would violate his blog's terms of service, opening you up to federal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, unless you live under the 9th Circuit Court's jurisdiction.