Spending time at GDC Online 2011 was interesting.  While the conference is much smaller than the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, the specific focus on all things online offered a lot of interesting content and new technologies to learn about.

Digital Harmony Games’ introduction of Dragons vs Unicorns might have been my last meeting before I flew back to San Francisco, but it showed off something I have been waiting for in mobile games for a while now.

True real-time cross platform gaming

Attending Playdom’s session with Steve Meretzky and Dave Rohrl led me to two distinct discoveries.

One: There is no magical formula for social games. Two: Most of them have a limited lifespan.

The pair discussed ten trends in the session, they highlighted a lot of the evolution of the genre as a whole and named specific titles.

When I was contacted and asked to meet Chris Ulm, I didn’t really know much about Chris or Appy Entertainment. My meeting him at the end of day two of GDC Online 2011 was a bit of a last minute thing.

But I am glad to have met him.

His history is epic, especially for a fan of comics and games. He was the Editor in Chief at Malibu Comics and the Ultraverse. Malibu published the first Image Comics. He was part of the sale of Malibu to Marvel Comics. He’s been in the gaming industry on the console side during the days of PlayStation 2 and Xbox, working for and creating his own development companies.

Now he makes mobile games with Appy Entertainment as CEO, being one of the early developers and publishers with the launch of the App Store. He also admits he rambles, but is honest in his opinions and insights.

Appy Entertainment is primarily an iOS developer and publisher.

Apple’s “Let’s Talk iPhone” keynote is over and CEO Tim Cook (with friends) talked about the new roll-out of products and features.

But with all the hype around the next new iPhone - which is actually the iPhone 4S and not the iPhone 5 - did anything really amazing come out of it for users?

Our Mobile Lead Expert James Thornton already talked about how to get many of the features of iOS 5 through different apps, but since iOS 5 presents a unified package, there are something things worth noting.

The lack of Adobe Flash support by Apple started with the first iteration of the iPhone.  Now one year and five months after the release of the iPad and six months after the release of the iPad 2; the first Flash-based game was ported and released for the tablet.

Machinarium is a great game, first released in 2009, it's a fun interactive point and click puzzler.

Dead Island is the new action horror game from Deep Silver, that first hit the headlines with an iconic teaser trailer earlier this year, but does it live up to the hype?

My feelings after the first few minutes were pretty poor. It looked cheap, and the opening segment had annoying trigger points that meant you were forced to do things a certain way or you couldn't continue. But as soon as my character had joined the survivors holed up in Dead Island, my feelings changes entirely. Sure, it might not look as polished as the new Deus Ex, but fighting the zombies is just endlessly fun.

Mixing dynamic zombie combat with RPG character development works beautifully. Dead Island has interesting weapons crafting, and you need to repair them too if you want to survive, while you can decide which survival and combat skills you want to develop. It's mainly about up close melee combat, and it feels good. You can fight off zombies intelligently, for example hacking their legs to slow them down, and be creative by throwing a gas canister into a swarm, then blowing it up and much more.

Apple today announced the release of iCloud, the online storage service that replaces MobileMe. iCloud has a number of competitors to deal with but biggest of all is Dropbox for Windows and Mac. While iCloud may certainly be a wake up call to Dropbox which hasn't seen much innovation in recent years, it's unlikely to replace it anytime soon. Here are some reasons why:

• Dropbox is truly cross platform

Dropbox will remain by far the easiest way to share files across platforms whether you're on Windows, Mac, Android or Linux. The only mobile platform it doesn't work with is Symbian and there's even a client to fix that.  iCloud meanwhile is restricted to mainly Apple devices such as Macs, iPhones and iPads. PCs are supported (although Windows XP isn't). Basically, if you don't have an Apple ID , then iCloud will be inaccessible to you.

• Dropbox is more flexible

Dropbox can store anything you throw at it. iCloud on the other hand is much more application based and backups/syncing will rely on developers adding support for it in their apps. This is great for Mac users that use official Apple products such as  iTunes and iPhoto etc but not no good for those that rely on third party apps that don't add iCloud support. Even though the free version of iCloud offers 5GB of free space compared to 2GB on Dropbox, you can't do as much with it.

• iCloud isn't a backup solution

iCloud is fine for syncing but not for backups - at least not for photos. At the moment, iCloud only allows photos to be stored for up to 30 days. Dropbox allows you to store your files for as long as you want or maintain your account. Apple may change this if they realize it's  a deal breaker for many users but until then, iCloud will be seen more as a syncing tool than a backup one.

Like MobileMe, it goes without saying that iCloud is likely to be a big hit with those who rely only on Apple products. It may also be popular with iTunes users that want to sync their music, calendar and address book with the cloud but nothing else. Dropbox may lose users of its professional version as people opt to use iCloud for music, and use the free version of Dropbox for general storage.

Whatever happens, iCloud should at least motivate Dropbox to improve its product and that can only be good news for its users.

Download Dropbox for Windows and Mac.

Google+ may be more than "just" a social network, but it can be used in in a similar way to Facebook, and many people want to join precisely because they want a change. Facebook has suffered a number of privacy scares as it has grown, so how does it compare with new kid Google+? Let's take a look at the  privacy options of both social apps.

Privacy Settings:

Facebook's privacy dashboard has a neat table that shows you who can see what. Click Customize and you can edit these settings. You can choose to share things with just you, friends, friends of friends or specific people. You can also opt to hide certain categories from specific people. Here you can also preview your profile as it appears to any of your friends.

The Google+ privacy settings page is much longer, but every segment is clearly explained. Editing your settings takes you to your profile, letting you see exactly which part of your profile you are altering. Google+'s Circles means you choose who can see your posts and updates as you make them, giving you much greater control.

While their approaches are different, I think both are good attempts at making privacy and sharing settings accessible and user friendly.

Back in 2000 I was lucky enough to meet up with Google’s CTO, the so-called ‘Employee Number One’, Craig Silverstein. He’d invited me along to the Dorchester in London to talk about the search engine’s new AdWords solution, just before the product was rolled out.

Silverstein spoke about the idea of a new pay-per-click and site-targeted advertising system that would be integrated into Google Search. After listening to his imagination-tickling speech, I unashamedly gave Silverstein’s ego a full body massage, telling him that I thought his new AdWords product will change the business world forever and even transform Google into an industry in its own right. He flashed a knowing smile and just said “that’s what I’m hoping”.

True to our mutual optimism that day, this was to be the moment Google went supernova. AdWords went on to become the company’s main revenue stream, generating revenues of $28 billion in 2010. Moreover, it has given businesses a quick and relatively cost-effective way to bring targeted customers through their doors.

Yesterday, as  I watched Google present its new Wallet solution, I got that same tingly feeling as I had 10 years ago, that something truly game changing is about to drop.

The lack of any major innovations in QuarkXPress' recent update to version 9 has left many dedicated Quark users disappointed at the evolution of the once unassailable desktop publishing application. As more companies and designers switch to Adobe products, especially InDesign, the question is: can Quark ever make it back from the brink?

While the latest QuarkXPress offers some great new features (such as the ability to create interactive books for iPads and support for eBook publishing), it can't fight against the rising tide of users switching to Adobe. Most designers use multiple applications in their creative work, so it makes sense to use integrated products such as InDesign and Illustrator. Since Adobe products follow a similar kind of format and layout, once you've learned to use one, you quickly learn how to use the others in the suite.

Quark's problems are not helped by the fact that it is incredibly expensive for what you get. The full package totals almost $2,000 and for about the same money, you could have the entire Adobe CS5 suite. Quark will not only have to start pricing its product far more competitively if its to keep up with Adobe, but will also have to make some serious innovations to give designers a compelling reason to choose it as their desktop publishing software of choice.

"There are no real-life viruses for Mac OS X. There never have been."

A point of frequent disagreement between Mac and Windows evangelists is security. With the arrival of OS X, Apple and some of its customers used the threat of viruses on Windows as a key selling point for its Mac line of computers. After that came a backlash of articles and posts claiming that OS X was in fact no safer than Windows and could even be at more risk.

There are three key areas to look at when it comes to this topic: Hacking, and its security implications for OS X, Security through obscurity, and System architecture. Read on to see why I argue that Mac OS X is just as safe as Windows 7, and how it might actually be even more secure than Microsoft's latest OS.

[Image includes elements created by Graham Colm]

Hacking, PwntoOwn and implications for OS X

Every year, Apple's web browser Safari gets some bad press for being 'the first browser to be hacked' at the Pwn2own security event. The results of the contest are frequently used to dismiss Apple's claims that its products are 'more secure'. I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who read reports (often on mainstream news sites like The Guardian) about Mac OS being 'hacked' at Pwn2own have little understanding of what the term 'hacked' means, or the terms of the contest.

Skype for Mac has been updated to version 5.1.0.914 adding support for external iSight cameras connected by Firewire, the ability to focus on specific speakers in conference calls, quick dialing, contact groupings on the right and call quality ratings. However, it's disappointing that more important issues haven't been addressed yet. In particular:

• The new wider interface hasn't been slimmed down despite widespread complaints from Mac users

The new larger interface introduced in version 5 has probably caused the most controversy. Its arguable that Skype has now become one of those rare applications where the Windows interface is actually more user friendly than the Mac version. In fact, some users have reverted back to the slimmer version 2.8 for Mac (there was no version 3 or 4 for Mac by the way). To their credit, the developers have minimized it a little bit in recent updates but its still got a long way to go before Skype feels like the slimline application it once was. If the developers really can't slim down the interface any further, maybe they could just include a version 2.8 skin that users can revert to if they choose.

Update: It seems that since this post was written and to at least improve the chat interface, Skype have launched a new "design your own chat template" competition for Mac Skype users. Prizes include an iPad 2 and a MacBook Air.

• Group video calling is still a premium feature

The removal of group video calling from the free version of Skype was one of the biggest disappointments in Skype 5. When applications such as iChat allow this for free, there seems little justification for Skype making this a premium feature. Even more annoyingly, during the beta testing period, group video calling was a free feature. Now that Skype for Mac has "gone Gold", it costs $4.99 per day or $8.99 per month just to have group video chats.

• Some features are still only available in the Windows version such as Facebook integration

Of course its nothing new that Macs are often treated as an afterthought by developers as Jon has argued but would it really be that hard to add Facebook integration or a snapshot feature to the Mac version of an application as popular as Skype?

Skype is one of the truly great web innovations but it now has serious competition on the Mac now in the form of Facetime. It would be a shame to see it go downhill just because the developers have decided to bloat and reduce the functionality of a perfectly good app.

Have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video and found it painfully slow? Ever tried to watch a TV show streamed online and found it stopping and starting constantly? Or simply tried to download a file from your e-mail and had to wait ages for it to complete? Most of us at some stage have suffered from painfully slow downloads and the causes can be various. More often than not though, the biggest culprit is bandwidth throttling by your Internet Service Provider (ISP) particularly at peak usage periods such as evenings and weekends.

Bandwidth throttling is when an ISP purposely restricts the amount of bandwidth that you're using in order minimize traffic congestion. As HD video and other bandwidth heavy applications demand more and more bandwidth, users are increasingly noticing the squeeze being put on them. That's why todays announcement by Britain's major ISPs that they are going to reveal exactly how they manage traffic and throttle bandwidth should be applauded and followed by ISPs everywhere.

This greater transparency reduces the threat to net neutrality - i.e. the temptation of ISPs to make deals with net giants such as Google that websites such as YouTube will be given bandwidth priority over smaller websites. How exactly this greater transparency will work is not clear though. Whether ISPs will be forced to publish reports of how they've managed traffic over a certain period or whether they will provide real-time updates on how traffic is being managed remains to be seen.

However, although transparency moves like this should be encouraged, it is no substitute for investment in infrastructure which is the main problem. One of the main reasons that South Korean Users can look forward to speeds of up to 1Gbps - 200 times faster than British average of 5Mbps - is that South Korea has invested heavily in its internet infrastructure. This is not only essential to providing a fair service for all but also for maintaining the innovation that makes the net so exciting. As John Naughton points out in The Guardian today:

The reason the internet has been such an powerful enabler of innovation is that it is, at its core, a meritocratic network which is not owned or controlled by anyone. All it does is take data packets in at one end and deliver them to their destinations at the other. And it was designed to be agnostic about the packets – to give them all the same treatment. In that sense, it was "neutral" towards applications. If you had a good idea that could be implemented in data packets, then the internet would do it for you, no questions asked.

That ISPs should seek to provide a more transparent service that continues to maintain a level playing field for innovation in applications is something all software developers and users should support.

Twitter's own iPhone app, formerly Tweetie, has been updated to 3.3, but that minor-looking upgrade brings some pretty major changes:

Some of these are pretty neat, like auto-complete for @usernames and the ability to search your phone contacts for friends on Twitter. However, like on the website, Twitter is pushing trends on the iPhone app. Now a translucent trending topic or 'Quick Bar' will float on top of your timeline. You can swipe it to rotate through trending topics, and you can choose to view location-based trends if you want.

What you can't do is turn the Quick Bar off, and it's quite intrusive. Unlike the search bar, it doesn't sit at the top, but appears over your timeline, apparently whenever it wants. I think trends are useful sometimes, but they aren't Twitter's top feature, and the inclusion of promoted trends just makes things worse! The people I follow are who I want to hear from; too often trends can be annoying (or even slightly offensive).

Hopefully the Quick Bar will become optional in version 3.4, but for the time being I'm going back to Echofon.

It can be immensely frustrating sometimes being locked into a device or platform as Charlie Brooker argues today in The Guardian. Brooker initially hated Macs before relenting and finally buying an iPhone and eventually a MacBook but now finds himself frustrated at the way Apple locks him into using iTunes to transfer music to any laptop. While his rant is aimed mainly at music transfers, he touches on another increasingly ferocious battleground, eBooks:

Apple's own iBook reader app may be nauseatingly pretty, but it's not a patch on Amazon's Kindle, which, far from being just a standalone machine, is a surprisingly nifty cross-platform "cloud" system that lets you read books on a variety of devices, including the iPhone and iPad. It even remembers what page you were on, regardless of whichever machine you were reading it on last.

Although Brooker sings the praises of Amazon here, they're hardly fighting the good fight. Both Amazon and Apple are in a war to lock users into either the Amazon Kindle or Apple iPad. eBooks bought from Amazon can only be used on the Kindle while eBooks compatible for the iPad can only be bought from Apple's iBookstore.

There is another alternative. It's not often that Adobe are the ones offering a fairer alternative, but in the world of eBook reading, they are in the form of Adobe Digital Editions. PDFs and Adobe ePubs can be viewed on all laptops, netbooks, and non-Amazon/non-Apple eBook readers, tablets and phones. Of course, this has nothing to do with a benevolent spirit of openness by Adobe. It's simply that they have no Kindle or iPad style reading device to flog us and thus have less of a vested interest in locking us into a particular device.

Adobe Digital Editions is free to use, works on any PC or Mac and provides an elegant and straightforward reading experience. Why would you want to spend over $300 on a Kindle for example when you can buy a cheap Netbook, which can do much more than a Kindle can, and use Adobe Digital Editions to read books on?

Most importantly, we should be supporting anything that tries to break the growing stranglehold of Amazon and Apple on the eBook market. This is not only an issue of encouraging more openness when it comes to formats, but also more competition in the pricing of eBooks.

Download Adobe Digital Editions for Windows and Mac.