razmataz

The head of Luna engineering at Amazon said Apple and Amazon worked together on Safari improvements (as reported per Engadget in https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-interview-pwa-apple-173948922.html). So to any posts asking whether Apple or Amazon knew this was coming the answer looks to be a plain yes.

The article also states Epic attempted something similar to circumvent the Google Play store, but eventually they had to cave in to Google Play to get some traction on Android. The article goes on stating that both Epic and Microsoft are aware of PWA approach. For the time being it does not appear to be a viable solution for them. The article also goes on stating an example where Luna seems to be exempt of a rule which Epic and Microsoft would be held to, with Microsoft affirming that it was a bad user experience. But if there is indeed favorable treatment then certainly it is no surprise that fairness is brought into question. In fact even Amazon rep stated they'd love to have a native experience in the longer term.

Interestingly, I'm not seeing the usual stance that development and support work doesn't come for free. It appears that in some cases Apple is willing to do some work without a perpetual percentage of the overall revenue. Engineering-wise this effort seems to me more effort than merely hosting something on the app store. Without speculating, one can still wonder why that is the case.

So many unanswered questions. I need more info to form an opinion.

cloudguy said:

22july2013 said:

chasm said:

This will absolutely be shown in the court battle with Epic to prove that they're just a bunch of whiny, greedy brats who want to use the App Store rent-free.

I'm not sure Apple would even be able to stop web-based apps from doing anything they want. And since Apple allows different web browsers on iOS, it wouldn't even be possible for iOS to even know what's going on inside a web engine. A web browser is already an alternate app store, in a way.

I think if Epic and MS want to win the battle with Apple, they need to push for more advances in HTML (if it's not already adequate) to allow more features for online gaming.

What makes you think that Microsoft is battling Apple? For goodness sakes. While Microsoft has stated that they would rather iOS be less restrictive:
1) Microsoft has consistently stated that they have no problem paying the 30% fee
2) Microsoft has consistently stated that the 30% fee is not an issue with xCloud
3) Microsoft has tons of apps (Office 365 hello?) that already comply with Apple's payment policies and has never complained about them
4) Microsoft has not sued Apple or joined any antitrust actions against them or testified against them in Congress
5) Microsoft has already all but stated that they will bring their own PWA solution for xCloud to iOS next year
6) Microsoft's not willing to support a PWA at this time on iOS is no different from that of Google or Nvidia
7) Amazon's supporting a PWA solution for iOS will force Google, Microsoft and Nvidia to come out with their own PWA solutions earlier than they intended. (Well not so much for Microsoft as they have technical limitations forcing them to focus only on mobile apps at this stage. Google and Nvidia already support browsers on other platforms so they have no good reason not to support PWAs on iOS).

Stop throwing everyone who doesn't say how high when Apple says jump into Epic's category. Epic is the only one pulling this nonsense, and lest we forget they are suing Google too and also pulled similar PR tactic nonsense against Steam back in the day. They are an unusual case and should be treated that way.

The head of Luna engineering at Amazon said Apple and Amazon worked together on Safari improvements (as reported per Engadget in https://www.engadget.com/luna-amazon-cloud-gaming-interview-pwa-apple-173948922.html). So to any posts asking whether Apple or Amazon knew this was coming the answer looks to be a plain yes.

The article also states Epic attempted something similar to circumvent the Google Play store, but eventually they had to cave in to Google Play to get some traction on Android. The article goes on stating that both Epic and Microsoft are aware of PWA approach in iOS. To my understanding of the text: it does not appear to be a viable solution for them. The article also goes on stating an example where Luna seems to be exempt of a rule for which Epic and Microsoft would be held to, with Microsoft also affirming that it was a bad user experience. If there is indeed favorable treatment then certainly it is no surprise that fairness is brought into question. But even Amazon rep stated they'd love to have a native experience in the longer term.

Interestingly, I'm not seeing the usual stance that Apple development and support work doesn't come for free. It appears that in some cases Apple is willing to do some work without a perpetual percentage of the overall revenue. Engineering-wise this effort seems to me more effort than merely hosting something on the app store. Without speculating too much, I am left wondering why that is the case.

With so many unanswered questions, there is definitely more to learn before forming a strong opinion.

Wow, I'd never thought I'd see an editorial like this on AI, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Nitpick: Stadia uses H.264 and VP9, not H.265. I think H.265 is way too risky for Google to implement anywhere. And now that Apple is getting more and more into video delivery services I suspect they'll also walk away from HEVC as per their AV1 participation.

As for commenting further on the article, I don't have time to handle the grief my consumer leaning views would cause me. But for those that do comment, please continue , it's been fun reading.

Perhaps a more useful article would be how to extend the life of your current Mac so you can wait it out. I've made some MacBook last a very long time a decade with the proper RAM upgrade, SSD upgrade, internal cable replacement and battery replacement. I've done it for friends too, all you need is a $2 screw driver and YouTube. Include proper care (external casing), keyboard cleaning, backups, etc.

I think for most users the specs needed are very pedestrian, I'm surprised that more don't buy from a reliable second hand source. If Linux can run on ancient CPUs then MacOS should not be that far off in CPU requirement.

For me the one thing that has forced me to upgrading is the screen. For example, Apple would still sell a very low resolution MacBook Air until recently, at a lower price that made it attractive to a buyer not asking the right questions. Low resolution doesn't work so well in a modern workflow. So cramped up that if you open two concurrent windows then you start needing to use virtual desktops. And that's if you don't need size-by-side visualization. Try to have a full textbook page on screen and wind up using an iPad instead. Likewise 13" is actually quite small when you start multitasking. If you need a better screen then you need to update, otherwise you most likely don't need anything unless you are a power user. And if I were a power user then I'd wait out the first generation of this new silicon. Let the kinks iron themselves out.

Also I'd wait out and see if Apple will actually run MacOS on iDevices. Then, for my needs, my next Mac would be a next gen iPod Touch I can carry in my pocket. Add a high bandwidth USB cable, plug in to a keyboard, mouse and monitor. Not sure Apple will allow it though, but I don't think it would be that hard to achieve from a technical standpoint (once MacOS runs on ARM).

lkrupp said:

macbootx said:

Developer: “Hey! I gots a good idea. Let’s benchmark this new Apple Silicon before we recompile a single line of code!” 

....SMH 

Websites are probably paying developers to ignore their NDAs. I hope Apple really cracks down on the offenders but unlikely. 

Be careful what you wish for. Given your comment, how far should this crack down go?

And what are your thoughts on this website (Apple-In-Cider) which has a very high rate of rumors, leaks, and gladly reports said benchmarks?

What is being reported here is pretty innocuous and I doubt it'll harm future sales. In fact the results are impressive: not a single issue being reported, straight to benchmarks. This project seems well on its way.