Marvin

jeffharris said:

Cool! I played Doom back in the day.
Is there a version that’ll run on my M3 MacBook Pro?

This version runs on Apple Silicon:

https://gzdoom.macupdate.com/

There are original Doom game files here:

https://archive.org/details/doompc_dos
https://archive.org/details/doom-2-play
https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22id+Software%22

In user folder/Library/Application Support, create a folder called gzdoom. Download the zip files on the Doom pages, extract and move the main .WAD files (DOOM.WAD, DOOM2.WAD) to the gzdoom folder. Then run GZDoom.

Meson said:

9secondkox2 said:

Apple did nothing wrong. 

Epic created a gigantic case just to get the courts to settle for something smaller. Unfortunately it worked. 

And now apple is supposed to give free access to competitors. 

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. If they want to charge a developer 99% for being listed on the store, they can do thst. 

But they’d lose partners. That’s how the free market works. 

27% is fair. And if they want to go to 20%, that’s fair too. 

But to try to force them to take nothing? That’s criminal. 

"Apple has a right to charge whatever they want." Really. You do understand that your the one who is paying at the end, correct. Don't you want competition on the iPhone? Or are you just happy with Apple just charging "whatever they want". 

This is just like tariffs. 😒

The amount per user is very low, it says here app store users spend around $5 per quarter or $20/year:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289909/mobile-app-spend-on-per-user-mobile-apps-quarter/

Apple posted a report saying they facilitated $400b in transactions, which includes physical goods:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/05/app-store-in-the-us-facilitated-406-billion-usd-in-developer-billings-and-sales-in-2024/
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/2024-US-Apple-Ecosystem-Report.pdf

Digital goods were $53b so this would be $53b / 1.5b iOS users = $35/year per user, similar to above figure.

Apple charges 15-30% of this amount, which is around $5-10/year per user.

If this was something like a healthcare, agriculture or oil industry monopoly that causes families to pay thousands per year, that would be worth doing something about. Saying Apple's fee is high because someone pays $5-10/year extra is ridiculous. The billion-dollar companies and their shareholders are the ones complaining because they don't get this revenue instead.

Apple has a right to charge a commission for directing over 100 million players to an app. Even if 30% of all transactions is too high, it shouldn't be 0%.

15% is a fair amount to charge for every transaction. For a $4.99 purchase, the developer can charge $5.99, Apple gets $1, developer gets their $4.99. The fee can also be capped for higher amounts.

hmlongco said:

People use phones to read, play games, watch videos, take photos and videos, and more. 

Until there's a replacement for the screen, the iPhone will still be around.

And for those looking forward to implants, may I direct you to S07E01 of Black Mirror?

The screen replacement will be what the Apple Vision Pro becomes. At an advanced stage, AVP replaces everything.

iPhone replaced cameras, GPS, iPod, phones, pagers, alarms etc.

The wearable computer can replace desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones. These separate products only exist due to screen sizes and cooling/power usage. This will have an OS that incorporates an advanced AI that learns about the user and the environment while blending digital content into the real world.

The OS on the wearable will be able to create an entire photoreal virtual world and people in it. The standard 2D UI vs full spatial computing will look like how the old terminals looked before the GUI.

mikethemartian said:

Why can’t developers do the same thing with a PC with a lower end Nvidia GPU?

Lower-end Nvidia GPUs typically don't have enough memory for AI models, especially laptops. They are getting better with up to 24GB VRAM but this is bare minimum for good models:

https://www.hardware-corner.net/guides/gpu-for-flux-1-image-model/

"For those seeking the highest quality with FLUX.1, use Dev and Schnell at FP16. These models require GPUs with at least 24 GB of VRAM to run efficiently."

If someone is deploying to an Nvidia H100 cloud setup with 80GB VRAM (multiplied by however many GPUs), the models likely won't fit in the low-end computer memory at all.

Macbook Pros can go up to 128GB unified memory and Mac Studios go up to 512GB.

AMD has started making unified memory computers but Nvidia doesn't make consumer x86 CPUs. They started selling a desktop AI computer, the DGX, which uses an ARM CPU but this has to be connected to a Mac or Windows computer as an accessory compute device.

This is one area where AMD could really make some gains in marketshare over Nvidia if they'd sell affordable gaming and AI hardware with options for lots of unified memory. For now, Apple is in a really good position for local AI development with very efficient chips, powerful GPUs and lots of unified memory combined with a good OS for development.

zimmermann said:

I see a lot of students, when traveling or doing an internship abroad, put their local sim subscription on hold. In the other country they get a prepaid  sim with just data. No phone or texting possible. And then they call and text through Whatsapp. If they buy a new prepaid card with a new number no one bothers to look at the new number, texting and calling just continues. I don't see this possibility happening to iMessage anytime soon. 

The actual iMessage app doesn't have to be and shouldn't be ported over. They can just have it integrate with other apps. When people send email to each other, Apple doesn't have to write the Mail app for Android. When people call each other, Apple doesn't have to write the phone app for Android. Let people keep using the crappy UIs on Android but allow them to send messages from WhatsApp and not have iOS users suffer that horrible UI by also having to use WhatsApp.

Apple would have an API where there's a contact format with a one-time authorization key. People would send this to WhatsApp (or other) users and they'd add it. Then they can send messages to this contact. Replies from iOS will also have a format and 3rd party apps will retrieve the message using the authorization key. If the iOS user invalidates the key, the other messenger can no longer send/retrieve messages.

This can work for FaceTime for audio calls and video too. When a WhatsApp user initiates a call to this iOS contact, it can start a FaceTime audio/video call.