danvm

22july2013 said:

Flytrap said:

22july2013 said:

I presume this article is talking about 32 cores being on the same die. If true, that's good to hear. But don't see why Apple couldn't put multiple physical packages with N-cores each on the same system board. Moreover, Apple should do this as an expansion card for existing Intel Mac Pros so that Intel Mac Pros can run M1-apps natively.

For anyone paying attention to Apple over the last few years... and for anyone paying attention at their most recent product redesigns... Apple has clearly declared war on end-user replaceable or upgradable modularity. Apple Silicon gives them the ability to make a giant leap towards turning the Mac into a personal computing appliance. They will get close, but, in my opinion, they will never really accomplish that goal because it will be impossible to turn what is currently a general computing operating system that people can run almost anything that they want on, into a locked-down firmware-like OS that can only run apps that Apple has deemed worthy to be allowed.

Fewer and fewer Apple devices offer end-user upgradable storage, memory, CPU, GPU, etc. None of the latest Apple Silicon Macs offer any means for an end-user to upgrade or replace the CPU, Memory, Storage, GPU... or anything that was not originally ordered with the machine, for that matter. If you have an Intel Mac, you can install and run any recent version of macOS. On an Apple Silicon Mac, you can only install and run macOS Big Sur... macOS is likely to be the only end-user upgradable part of a Mac appliance in future.

If the market doesn't want upgradeable Macs, who are you to order Apple to do otherwise?

How do you know if the market want or don't want upgradeable Mac's when the Mac Pro is the only upgradable option available from Apple?  

Second off, if the market wants a locked-down, firmware-like secure OS, who are you to order Apple to do otherwise? Do you oppose freedom of choice? Do you want everyone to be forced by law to follow the Android or Microsoft model?

I don't see @Flytrap comment as an order, but as an opinion that in his POV would be good for him and customers.  And I don't see how his POV hurt's freedom of choice.  For example, if Mac's were upgradable as Thinkpads, you have to choice to upgrade or not.  As today, Mac's limits freedom of choice, since you are forced not to upgrade.  BTW, what's your opinion of the Mac Pro?  Is that a device that oppose to freedom of choice, since it's upgradable, or maybe less secure?

And there is a benefit you miss with sealed devices as Apple notebooks, on-site service.  My customers have ThinkPads and their X1 Carbons and P1 that are just a little bit thicker than MBP's have on-site service.  With a MBP I have to go to an Apple Store for service.  And if you live far from an Apple Store, you have to mail your device.  In both cases you'll lose hours of days without your device.  My customer just make a call, receive the part in 1-2 days and an IBM representative install it at the office.  Don't you think that would be nice for Apple notebooks?

Third off, why do you consider the current crop of Macs to be non-upgradeable since they have Thunderbolt ports that allow plenty of external hardware upgrades?

If you read @Flytrap comment, he included CPU and RAM in his upgrade list.  As today, there are no thunderbolt CPU or RAM expansion options.  

Fourth off, why aren't you ranting about the lack of upgradeable TVs? Or why aren't you ranting about the lack of TV repair shops? Nobody cares to upgrade or repair their TVs anymore. Who are you to say that people should care? TVs are commodities now. Nobody cares about what's inside them. Same with computers. Nobody cares to upgrade a CPU, despite your desire to do that.

What if Apple customers cared for upgradable devices?  Maybe we will never know until Apple released upgradable devices, and see how customer receive or reject them.  

foregoneconclusion said:

danvm said: I haven't read anything that MS specifically rejected the idea of gaming being submitted for review in the App Store.

"Update: In a statement to CNET, Microsoft said that Apple's new guidelines don't offer an ideal experience for customers. From Microsoft: "This remains a bad experience for customers. Gamers want to jump directly into a game from their curated catalog within one app just like they do with movies or songs, and not be forced to download over 100 apps to play individual games from the cloud. We're committed to putting gamers at the center of everything we do, and providing a great experience is core to that mission."

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-updates-app-store-review-guidelines-to-allow-streaming-game-services-that-submit-each-game-to-the-app-store-updated.2253819/

Notice the wording about "bad experience" and "forced to download". It couldn't be more clear that MS objects to having to submit games for review AND that they don't really believe that a Windows PC and an iPhone are interchangeable platforms. Just look at the fact that MS has never previously bothered to release their popular 1st party games on iOS in the pre-streaming era. They should have done so if they really viewed iOS as being no different than a Windows PC. 

IMO, MS comment was based in Apple rules forcing their app to work in a way that is not the best experience for customers.  You said that MS "MS has never previously bothered to release their popular 1st party games on iOS in the pre-streaming era."  But neither MS has released their popular games for macOS or Linux, and both are considered PC's.  Again, this issue is more related to Apple rules forcing MS to break their game experience than something related to a platform.  

foregoneconclusion said:

danvm said: The type of apps available in an iPhone and a PC / laptop are very similar.

That's obviously not true since Microsoft objected to the requirement that apps in their streaming service had to be submitted for review in the App Store. No reason to object if they really believed that the two platforms were so similar. Again, Spencer is relying on double-standards to make his argument. He tries to say an iPhone is a direct equivalent to a desktop/laptop computer, but then claims it's anticompetitive to have to submit desktop/laptop apps for review in the App Store. 

I haven't read anything that MS specifically rejected the idea of gaming being submitted for review in the App Store.  From the beginning Apple didn't allow cloud gaming services, while MS already had the xCloud app in TestFlight.  Maybe MS thought of the possibility that later, Apple rules for cloud gaming were going to be similar as movies / TV and music subscription services (IMO, that would made sense too).  And nono of those services submit their content to Apple for a reviewing process.  But Apple decided to treat them differently, and now we have the rules we see today.  IMO, there is no need to submit xCloud or Stadia games to Apple for review, considering they were already check by ESRB / PEGI.  But it's Apple Store, Apple rules.  At the end, Apple customers are missing the cloud gaming experience.  

EsquireCats said:

Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

You have to remember that MS had the xCloud app even before Apple had rules allowing game streaming.  So maybe MS had the thought that Apple would allow them to have the store-in-a-store that you mentioned, similar as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video.  At the end, Apple decided to make rules that were different from the App MS originally design.  IMO, I don't see MS deliberately creating an app with the purpose of breaking Apple rules.  It looks like that the Apple App Store wasn't ready for gaming cloud services.  If you ask me, I think that MS was right with their approach, similar as video / TV services do, click an app to access their content.    

Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

Microsoft maybe is right about general purpose devices and consoles.  Is clear that a gaming console is very different from a general purpose device, as an iPhone or iPad.  Even the content of the app store proves that gaming consoles are different.  For example, I don't see developers creating MDM, ERP, spreadsheets or documents apps for gaming consoles.  

Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.

Yes, the gaming market is big, but there are many competitors in that market.  I don't see why MS specifically should have more scrutiny on the Xbox store. And it's sad to see MS, Google, NVidia and Amazon being forced to use Safari for their services.  Customer would had a far better experience if Apple allowed a native app, so it looks like Android users will have the best cloud gaming experiences thanks to Apple rules. 

And I think reach more users is the real motivation for MS having xCloud / GamePass in iOS devices, not free advertising as you said.  

Rayz2016 said:

And sorry, but more than ever, in the world of PC's it's a Windows World.  

If this were true then mobile Windows wouldn't have crashed and burned and Microsoft wouldn't be releasing stuff on iOS and Android before getting to Windows. It's a web and mobile world. Even Microsoft knows this. 

I think that @georgeBMac comment was about the PC market, and he is right.  Windows still dominating by far, and I don't think it has any relation to what happened to Windows Phone.  But you are right that web and mobile are very important.  But it looks like the PC still important too, considering sales growth in past months.  At the same time, as you said, MS is aware of the importance of the web and mobile.  They maybe lost the smartphone business, but it is a completely different story with the cloud.  Azure and MS 365 are very successful, and while MS has a low market share in mobile devices, they have a strong presence on them with MS 365 and their MDM tools.  

As I said, CloudPC will probably be the best option for running Windows apps on the Mac, because I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would rather folk did this than install Windows ARM on an ASi Mac.

If that won't work for you, then your best bet is to leave the Mac platform and get yourself a PC.

I agree with you.  I think CloudPC ( or whatever is the final name) will the be option to run Windows in Apple Silicon Macs.  I'm not sure if it's a solution for all cases but I think it would work for many.