Sunday, March 10, 2013
Apple Files Patent for Handling Used Digital Goods
Apple Files Patent for Handling Used Digital Goods
Nates4Christ.
One more step to use living in virtual reality worlds and putting our headset on and digitally walking to a digital gamestop.
theKiller7.
Gamestop will still rip you off.
mattwhite32788.
Don't get me started on their return policy. -_-
tglendinning2.
That's the point of Gaikai and PS4... try before you buy!!!
DTech-Revu.
You mean the you spend 60 plus tax which makes it 70, and they will buy it back from you two days later for 25 dollars? And if your stupid enough to do that, they put it up and sell it back to someone else for 55 dollars which with tax is like 65, yeah GameStop howcome your still in business I wonder?
jankelope.
This is actually a really cool idea
BluePhoenixRa.
Sure beats the idea of DRM.
jankelope.
Indeed
Yatrix30.
I'm a fan of this, definitely. Gives the publisher their rightful payday while allowing a secondary user the ability to buy it cheaper from someone else. I can see this happening in gaming consoles.
jankelope.
Think of this. I buy a game for $9.99. I'm done with the game and I "trade it" back to apple for store credit. Let's say $3. Someone purchases it "used" $8. The publisher / developer gets money extra and that person gets a discount. All while I get back store credit for whatever. It starts an economy of sorts into the iOS ecosystem. I think its awesome. There would have to be a downside to purchasing used though, say I can't trade it back for money once its used
AWesternCanadian.
I think the downside is it devalues further. Say you buy new at $10, 'sell' for $5 store credit, Person 2 buys 'used' for $8, can sell for $4 the other part that would 'control' it, is there are only a certain number of people trying to sell used anyways, so a used copy may not be available.
ScottDammit.
Yea, and that would keep the new price higher in that economy, making the used one the rarity. I don't think people that buy digital want to give up their license very much, else they'd be renting or on netflix. Of course, we don't rent music... but often there's youtube and the like. This idea will, in a large way, put a premium on new digital licenses, which still seem a little high. With the fact that we don't own anything when we buy digital, we're just renting indefinitely without the physical disc, I'm not really into this.
jankelope.
I say when you purchase a used copy, you cannot re sell it
ShadowKiller97.
Pay $7 to play through once or pay $8 to keep it forever. Why would anyone go the first route in that case? For $1 extra you get to keep the game forever. And you dont run the risk of paying $10 and liking it and want to keep it forever. I don't forsee this working very well. If Apple becomes the used game vendor, why would anyone buy anything "new." With physical media a used copy is, generally speaking, in worse condition than a new copy. With digital media, usage does not diminish the quality. What I would think would work better is the person who buys it originally sells it to a the person who wants the used copy for a negotiated price. Then a cut of that could go to the developer.
gtmach6.
Ya I agree. I think it's a cool idea but what really does separate the quality of new vs. used in the digital marketplace?? Everyone would buy used and we're essentially back to square 1 at lower price points.
AshKillm.
It could be a weird system b/c (at least for games) it can depend on the quality of the content... if no one wants to sell the game back than essentially ppl who want the game are forced to wait till it goes on the market used or buy it new
ScottDammit.
And for a mediocre game it would really, really screw the developer by the market getting a quick influx of digital returns, regardless of their continued influx of income. The game would be tainted if people notice how many games are up for resale compared to the release date. The reputation and the income would be lessened greatly, especially considering how fast one could put the item back up for used sale.
Jo-cok.
Spyware? Also does this mean no other company can do secondhand ware because Apple now owns this idea? Seems monopolistic to me. Imagine if only one company owned the right to create flushing toilets.
jankelope.
that would be terrible! but this idea drives the economy and is ultimately good for everyone involved
ghostdog6891.
i would imagine as long as a company does not use the same software and programs to sell digital content they would be fine to do so
BluePhoenixRa.
For now it looks like that. But I do hope they expand on this and everyone else follows something similar to this.
skyerahe.
but the idea that this is novel enough to patent is idiotic
Jbrasco.
Cool in theory. "The second-hand purchaser would then pay said value, which is transferred back to the content creator or publisher." Is the part that scares me. This means, that once I sell my used digital book to someone, I have to pay a fee to do this and the money that person pays, goes back to the creator or publisher. Wait... What??? So, I have to lose money to sell my used digital book?? Why would I even sell it then? Unless, my thinking is totally wrong, this is a terrible idea.
cm1990.
I agree, there's no reason the publisher should be getting a cut. You already paid for the said product it's yours. You should be able to sell the item without worrying about fees or someone taking a cut out. This is just another ridiculous cash grab screwing the consumer. I don't care if it's digital or physical, if you paid for the item you own it.
ScottDammit.
Yeah, Honda doesn't get a piece of the pie when I sell my car. Doing things in a digital space that is owned and run by someone is like working at a job... you're part of a dictatorship. A very inviting and well marketed one.
AshKillm.
It's interesting indeed.. imagine selling all the digital games you don't play anymore to another person but with a small fee taken off.. sounds like a good deal compared to you just being shit out of luck with current digital content.
mattwhite32788.
If I could resale some of my Steam games, that'd be GREAT.
DylanFill.
Well, if Apple patented this I don't think it'll be coming to Steam anytime soon.
jankelope.
They'll license it
Guest.
It'd be cool if you could just resale the game back to the publisher for half price or something.
BurgerBlaze.
Why would any publisher go for that? You buy from them so they can buy back the license from you? Kinda makes buying from them trivial doesn't it?
ShadowKiller97.
Sounds like you want a trial...
kiguel182.
This is actually pretty good. Digital media needs to have a better notion of value. Otherwise seems like you don't own anything anymore.
ScarecrowES.
Well, it's not exactly a "used transfer system," is it? I mean, since you never really owned the material anyway, we're just talking about licenses, not content. And since you're technically paying the publisher as a receiver of the transferred license... it really should just be called "discounted licensee system." Of course, I doubt it's even remotely legal to use... as a licensor (the person who leases the right to use a piece of content from the producer), you have no legal right to transfer the license to another person. In fact, it's expressly illegal to do so as a violation of copyright and intellectual property laws. You actually agree not to do so whenever you use this content. How then, can Apple hope to implement a system that violates the law, unless a publisher gives them express permission to do so for a given set of products. It'd have to be totally opt-in on their part. I don't see that happening. I mean, really? How much is the fee going to be on a 25-cent song? A person couldn't just pay the 25 cents? They're going to go through the hassle of getting it transferred from their friends? And who'd want to buy a digital version of a movie or song that everyone they know wants to get rid of? It's completely impractical. The only place this works is in software sales (and potentially games)... but since we're talking Apple... you can rule out anything that anyone would actually want to use. There's very little out there EXCLUSIVE to Apple, and the content would certainly have to be exclusive for this to work. And even so... I don't see a system that charges a transferee based on how much YOU used a product is going to make any sense. YOU may not be all that interested in a product, but clearly the other person is... the price is always based on demand. Imagine a world where the price of goods was based on just how badly a company wanted to keep its products for itself. Ludicrous. Sorry... yet another pointless patent.
ScottDammit.
Good god, man, thank you! I saw nothing but positive remarks about this, and the voice of reason came through you.
ElazulHP.
They shouldn't charge a fee. Giving away property you already own shouldn't cost you anything. Apple is simply eyeing another way to cash cow people.
chrishaney23.
This is an impossible situation. You can ALWAYS go to the "car" scenario. I buy a car, and sell it... Ford, Honda, Toyota etc etc doesnt get money for me selling their car to someone else so why do the developers feel they have a right to get money from a second hand sale? The problem here is that (almost) everybody needs a car and only some people need video games. The issue is that if developers get money from second hand sales they can, and this is a really big assumption, they can put that money into making better and bigger games. Look at Gearbox recently and that whole dilemna. Are they putting theirt mopney into making better games? Certainly looks like NOT! I want what every other gamer wants, bigger and better games. The fact is games are expensive to make and if they dont sell so many copies, that company dies cause sales dont cover expenses. What needs to happen, and this is guaranteed NOT to happen, is, people need to stop buying Call of Duty every year. CoD is $25 million a year in sales that could be spread out along ALL the other games out there that NOBODY, especially a parent, wants to take a chance on. Again why, EXPENSIVE! People will always buy a sure thing but wont buy a chance. The industry needs to change but the likes of EA and Activision wont let it. The end result is a loss for everybody cause these 2 will single handedly destroy the entire industry on their own. Copy and Paste this for future refence. Its gonna happen!
ScottDammit.
Weeeeeeeeell said
Thribs.
How is that any different than buying it new?
ShadowKiller97.
Exactly! There is no difference. So why would anyone pay full price for new when used is cheaper and the exact same quality? This is just semantics for a discount/refund policy.
ScottDammit.
"This is just semantics for a discount/refund policy." Ahhhh, now I see the light. Now it looks even MORE pathetic :D
YUTDOLLACWWW2.
So... Apple wants to pantent used goods?
desertfox41.
Well this is just what we need. Apple raking in billions more by becoming the new "Gamestop" of digital content.
jankelope.
Hey a good idea is a good idea. And apple won't be the only ones raking in money. The developer or artist will get back money too
Jounochi.
Yeah, this is actually really exciting for us Apple users. I bet all of the devs are backing this thing up!
Guest.
I don't think that at all. It's all going to go to Apple with musicians, and some to labels. Sure, artists will get a piddly amount of red money (pennies) but it's kind of screwing them out of their slightly-more-red-money by enticing buyers with a cheaper product. I.E., with CDs back when, artists got 15 cents a record, and this wants to give them 11 or 12 more often, since this is in a world where you can offer it digitally new, all the time, and not screw yourself or the artist by selling it for less. This is attempting to create a cheaper market where you have control, instead of... well, having control, so you don't let it start. Physical media is different, they don't have that control. Soon there won't be physical media for music at all. There is no difference with a "digital used" product (versus a new one), besides time... so charging less in this manner is stupid, because you can just attract everyone to buy the product by lowering the price at a steady rate. Lots of people right now say "eh, I'll get that game later when it goes down in price for the digital because right now the digital is 60 freaking dollars and I have a ton of games already". So, take more money by saying "digital buyer, you keep it... you wanted it day one because you are awesome, thank you. Now, 3 months later, lets get it to the people who are just a tad less awesome and LOWER THE PRICE." If the game sells well, you wait longer to lower the price. If not, lower it quick. Physicals have the depreciation of wear/tear, however. Here, Money will probably go to publishers a lot more than developers or original creators. It is definitely NOT a good idea unless you only care about money moving, and not where it moves, which is a major problem with our whole American economy in general. I care about the original creator, and I don't see it as a benefit to them at all. But, then again, as I said earlier, red money adds up, so maybe creative talent or developers may see something out of it. Of course, if I wanted it digital, I would just ask that I don't have to pay for the physical resources and that it's a little cheaper already. At that point, simply don't do this pathetic mess of an idea and make more money. This seems desperate to create a market that no one should want. Supporting this with any optimism is rather equivalent to screwing artists over if you ask me, but I do see what you mean, and I hope you are right if it goes through. I only see Apple winning, and I have too many reasons to not be down with that. If it really does have a significant plus for original creators (not big guys), I'd support it, but it still seems intuitively lame.
Guest.
Worse yet, this whole idea is to support a movement where the digital price NEVER goes down (as it should based on demand) and the only way to get it cheaper is to do this after you find a friend or go on whatever site you'd have to look on. That just means finding this site a year after a, say, 60$ game comes out to find it for less because, even in another year (a total of two) the face value of the game is still full price and we all have to do more work, including apple, to do this bs and find it for the proper 20$ price. Just lower the price with time as demand falls. Good games lower slowly, bad games lower quickly. Used is for physical, digital is never even owned. Digital does not depreciate for any reason besides demand because it does not lose quality. No one should forget this just because money moved somewhere somehow. This almost makes me want to start pirating, and I intentionally avoid that.
ScottDammit.
Thank you, as you have reminded me that common sense still exists
Navstar86.
I don't understand the concept of used digital products. If I buy a digital CD used it doesn't decrease the quality of the audio compared to a new version of the CD. So why would I pay more for a"new" CD when I get the identical thing cheaper because it's "used"
The-Hinderer.
physical media will not go away until the worlds internet is waaaay more powerful then it is which will probably not happen any time soon.
Guest.
Are they on crack? This better not as hell get pass.
jankelope.
I think its awesome
BurgerBlaze.
Why not? How many digital storefronts do you know that actually have a working trade procedure for used software? Amazon was allowed to patent 1-click payment process for online stores, as an example of something that should be considered standard but was actually quite novel for the time. Seeing as no one has a used software policy for digital stores, why shouldn't apple be awarded this?
the_corey_one.
It's a great idea, and the artist might make some of their money back!!
ShadowKiller97.
It wouldnt work. Why would anyone then buy anything new? "Used" copies of digital media are in no way inferior to the "new" copies. This then boils down to a discount. Or if they make it so "used" versions are not any cheaper, it becomes a refund policy; a way to get money back for games you dont like.
Pinback_Sherman.
Wow - that's pretty dumb.
redskull180.
How the hell does apple afford and get all these patents? Oh right I forgot... they overcharge for tablets and computers and sue people.
Ed_Kel.
Apple does it again!
Madmankyle.
Alternate idea... Create a used app marketplace where people can sell their already purchased apps at their own set price. Then give apple and the developer a small portion of the selling price, and voila! A competitive second hand digital store. Example: app originally sells for .99 cents, I resell it for .59 cents, I get 40 cents back, apple gets .09 cents, and the developer gets .10 cents. And remember, this would be the second time the developer and apple get paid for the same license.
jankelope.
the problem with that is who would buy it new? nobody would in that case. It would always make sense to buy used
Madmankyle.
Not necessarily... They could include incentives for new purchases, such as bonus points or coins etc. Used sales would also largely be reflective of availability. How many people will actually be selling at a time, probably no where near as many as those who are looking to buy.
Guest.
And in at least one way Apple screws itself (which is 100% fine by me) and the artist (which went from getting almost nothing to slightly closer to nothing, trust me at least as far as musicians) by saying "We could charge 1$ for you to use this thing, but... eh, why don't we let someone else charge you for something they don't even own and we'll get a lot less and so will the artist, all the while you saved like 10%". Your idea is basically like what they want to do, and it's absolutely ludicrous. People shouldn't even acknowledge something in the digital space existing anywhere but in the digital space and their own mind. Potentially the dumbest idea I've ever heard of, there MUST be some way they could rake in tons of cash through some weird technicality for this to even have been thought of. My money is on them trying to keep the "new/digital" face value at the maximum price at all times, just for show, and pigeonhole the used market as the only rare "lucky man, you found it for digital/used!" to sell, in the end, more new full price licenses because finding it used will be difficult. Again, one can own space in the form of a hard drive, the computer or whatever to see it on, the TV/monitor, the interface device, the hardware... but software isn't owned, even if it's on a disc... but I can still sell that disc anyways. I think this will be our own used market demise. Can you imagine paying full price for the first Matrix movie? That's what they do in a lot of online worlds for digital, and it's stupid. I can get it for cheaper and resell it physically. Don't support this. At best, it still makes no sense. At worst, it will screw over the used market.
Jim_23.
That's pretty much what the patent described....
empannihilator.
So you buy the product; it is yours. But apple wants more money for you to be able to sell it? Knowing apple that the fee will be nearly the same price as the item any way.
ScottDammit.
Prediction: when this hits games, CDs and blu rays in general, used hard copy will still be cheaper.
d1sciple.
Strange. What you don't have with digital media is degradation, so a marketplace would only lead to lost sales of og titles as there's no loss as a buyer, not even a loss of confidence. Don't think this is the way forward, but a good place to start a real conversation about how this can possibly work in the future.
Guest.
I'm all for the developer and creator (but personally I think publishers that do nothing but publish are dinosaurs... see school textbooks, EA and Activision... but note that opposites that get involved include 1st parties, Ubisoft, or the flailing SquareEnix, for example in gaming). But, this idea, and apparently I'm alone on this, makes no sense to me. I know that if this were going on with the record industry 10 years ago, I wouldn't support it in the slightest because artists already got(/get) so little of the money made off their records this whole thing is a push exclusively for publishers. With this idea, there's the least amount of ownership involved possible. I'm actually okay with them getting rid of used games (I finally came around), so long as the new go down quickly (like blu rays and dvds currently do, new). But that's a physical copy. A download is like a permanent rental. If I have my friends involved, it's different. In a world where I bought, right when it came out, the second season of game of thrones on blu ray for 30 bucks, and I can give away the dvd or digital copy or whatever, I don't see how this fits in. I know, I know, I'm being totally one sided, but this really just seems desperate and extremely silly. Of course, that's Apple for ya. People buying into it doesn't make Apple not silly, it makes people also silly. For crap's sake, just keep your eyes out for a proper price to charge for a new digital product, publishers.
OUTFOXEM.
Great. Not just DRM, but DRM that tracks your usage.
Magnicon.
As things are this will do nothing. If they are going to charge fees, people will just continue to do things illegally. This is just another case of Apple wanting to make money by providing next to nothing. Its basically stealing from content creators, like they have been doing with Itunes for all these years.
Hoopstar245.
Apple is very smart I'm glad to see everyone isn't hating on them in the comments :)
chrism92.
greenmangaming.com 'buys back' some games already, not really the same just worth mentioning
philycheese.
So just unplug the power cord to their servers.
z3razerviper.
Why the hell should "Techniques" be patentable
Joffrey.
It's something.
Niceneasy92.
I really do like the idea of being able to sell back our virtual goods used, but I really really really hate the idea of a single company patenting the idea of it. How the hell is anyone else going to do this now?
sunK1D.
Eh i'm ok with this. Content handlers are beginning to acknowledge something needs to be done.
BloodMeridian.
Sure as heck alot smarter than DRM that's for sure...
yeathisguy.
I said this idea a LONG TIME AGO.... Too bad i'm not that far in the industry to make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment