mbdrake76

I pay Wasabi and Backblaze B2 around $5.99/terabyte, so iCloud is cheaper. But, as the article states, functionally it just isn't the same as I can set-up policy rules and keys to content. Apple needs to open up iCloud and provide an API or provide an S3 compatible service which would enable it to integrate with all manner of services.

Beats said:

I can install anything in my Mac too, including Windows!! Can’t do that on a windows machine.

And they allow 3rd party payments and stores? Heck I’m setting up shop on Xbox selling crappy games then. 

True, but Apple is the one that's not allowing macOS to legally run on Windows/generic x86_64 boxes.  But that's an intended design.  Generic x86_64 boxes were designed to run all manner of hardware and operating systems, whereas Macs are very hardware-specific and meant to keep things as simple as possible.  That Macs could run Windows natively or through virtualisation during their Intel period was a bonus.  Microsoft has sided with Qualcomm when it comes to Windows ARM, and that's their choice to do so - though there shouldn't be anything to allow them to work with Apple to get a Windows ARM Boot Camp working.

brian.on.android said:

I think people would lay off Apple if they would just allow third party payment systems fully.

Developers already spend $99+ a year for distribution of their apps in the app store. 3rd party payments require $0 for Apple to maintain because they use zero of Apple's infrastructure outside of the phone you already paid for.

Apple doesn't need to take a cut in your entire business.

I'd rather go through Apple with any payment related issues than countless other payment processors such as Worldpay, Cleverbridge, Stripe, or whatever is being used.  But nobody seems to be giving a damn about the consumer and what they think about all this - just the profit margins of Apple and the app developers.  Apple will still charge their cut regardless of whether you use their or a third party payment processor.  Apple will still want payment for hosting the app (along with vetting it - which I will say they desperately need to improve upon - but Google also needs to up the ante too).  The key issue here is how much they're charging for that service.  It's up to the developer whether that's worth it or not.  Nobody has a God-given right to any particular platform.

As for the annual $99 - that's barely anything.   Having run a small ISP, there were significantly greater annual charges than that, plus the rest.

What about Microsoft buying pretty much every games development studio under the sun?  They've been consolidating quite a few of late - more so than Sony has, that's for sure.  Will there be any games companies left that aren't owned by Microsoft or Sony?

dope_ahmine said:

@mbdrake76 Lucky you. You must basically live on top of a GFN server that is hooked straight into a Fortnite server. In Europe it’s hard to reach 60 fps at 1080 when playing this game, even with Gb/s internet connections. Most of the time its more like 20-30 fps, and with second-long dropouts when scenes change rapidly or plenty of players enter your viewfield.

The problems are many: GFN servers are overloaded, the nearest GFN server is too far from you, the nearest Fortnite server is too far from your GFN server etc. Nvidia is at best only optimizing the first link in this chain. Their service would be better if they tried to optimize the whole gaming experience. But I seriously doubt they could match the performance of a real gaming console today — except maybe in those rare cases of @mbdrake76 ’s situation.

I must admit to having thrown a bit of money at it.

I'm based in South East England, and I imagine I'm connecting to NP-LON-05 with good routing from Virgin Media on a 1Gbs connection (and I've just updated my router to a Netgear Nighthawk RAX200 which has definitely improved sustained throughput).  I'm connecting to NA-East Fortnite servers which usually provides better players than Europe (and more of them during bouts of insomnia), and don't experience any performance issues (yet).  The RTX3080 tier is the most expensive plan, and its difficult to ascertain how many people are currently using it - but so far I've always been able to connect without issue.

This is a 10-minute sample of Fortnite gameplay on GFN RTX3080, using the GFN client on macOS Monterey (which is partially Apple silicon native):