So here is the thing, a lot of publishers went out and licensed IP for the iPhone/iTouch and this is going to cause a huge nightmare for them. For example, when publisher X went out and decided to license TV show Y for the iPhone/iTouch and make a game, the license would stipulate which devices the license covered and normally would include language that specifically mentions the devices i.e. iphone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS. Now imagine you are Publisher Z that licensed the same TV show for Console, Mac and PC's. Both X and Z have decent legal arguments and in addition, the owner of the TV shows IP can actually say "well this is a completely different device, so publisher X you have to make the game available on the iphone/iTouch ONLY or stump up more cash" Obviously you cannot make a game available on the iPhone/iTouch. Door number three is you have to pull the game completely. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens. Generally speaking IP owners are not the most generous souls on the planet and will be looking for another chunk of change.
That does seem logical, but it depend on what apple allows on the iPad. Right now it looks like a an ipod someone photoshopped to make bigger.. They seem to also use the same appstore so that would cause a big problem if it's considered different.
From what Job's said, if you already bought the app on your iPhone you can DL it again on your iPad. If nothing else the lawyers will make some coin.
Interesting suggestion, I could see how it would get messy but I'd think all of this would be handled in the various App Store agreements to allow for future devices, no?
No, sadly the issue lies in the fact that now the license owners will have to define what the iPad actually is? Is is a tablet computer, a multimedia device or a netbook. The definition that they will provide publishers will be the one where they make the most money. I spoke to a few today and they were jumping for joy. They are all looking at having a great quarter. Essentially they do not care what Apples terms and conditions are. One guy made a very funny comment to a publisher today "you may have an app for that, but you don't have a license for it" and then went on to tell the guy he was "more than welcome to put in a bid" for some license. Here is the thing, the publisher has a successful title, they have invested 500k between the licensing, dev and marketing etc. The dude that owns the IP says "hey joe either you give me 200k or you need to pull it down!". BTW I am not saying this is a cool attitude, I am just saying that they can and will take this route. Now IF and only IF the language was broad and the licensor stated in the license "Apple products" as opposed to naming the product, you could be fine! BUT no IP owner would do that because they would then be giving away IP licenses to the Macs, Mac books etc. It is going to be a very interesting few months for a bunch of people. I come from this space and I can tell ya the second jobs mentioned that every license I agreed since the iPhone came out went to the front of my mind.
This is where Apple own up and say "yeah, it's a giant iPod Touch" to get all the licence owners to keep quiet.
btw for clarity btw the license owners I am talking about are the original creators or the new owners. let's say Playfirst licenses Diner Dash for the iPhone -they have not, they actually do it themselves- to Glu. The core of Playfirsts business is the pc and mac biz. They could just turn around to Glu and say pull it.
That would solve the problem 100% and it would solve a bunch of headaches for a lot of the industry. btw I should also mention that a license for pc and mac platforms is 10X in terms of costs than that of mobile devices. So it is going to be an odd time.
