hackintoisier
About
- Username
- hackintoisier
- Joined
- Visits
- 47
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 400
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 87
Reactions
-
Intel-based MacBook Pro is Intel's latest anti-Apple campaign target
I hope they do too. I don’t like windows at all and would prefer to game on Mac if I could.ikir said:
Actually macOS could be a great gaming platform, it needs marketshare. macOS is much more stable and simpler than Windows, Metal is super fast. Apple Silicon is great and it is just the beginning. Time will tell.hackintoisier said:Intel does have a point that macOS sucks if you are a gamer. The latest blockbuster titles just aren’t available on Mac, and that is a fact. Of course many people buy macs for reasons other than gaming, but the gaming market is a still a relatively big market.Also, Apple could have chosen to use tiger lake and nvidia gpus, but famously opted not to do so, of course, and intel is just highlighting that.Finally, tiger lake launched with 4 cores, so it couldn’t keep up with m1 and mobile Ryzen 5000 in multithreaded heavy benchmarks, but tiger lake h with up to 8 cores is out, and it smokes m1 in multithreaded tasks and has taken the gaming crown from AMD, according to a recent Linus Tech Tips review of the 11800H.
-
Intel-based MacBook Pro is Intel's latest anti-Apple campaign target
Intel does have a point that macOS sucks if you are a gamer. The latest blockbuster titles just aren’t available on Mac, and that is a fact. Of course many people buy macs for reasons other than gaming, but the gaming market is a still a relatively big market.Also, Apple could have chosen to use tiger lake and nvidia gpus, but famously opted not to do so, of course, and intel is just highlighting that.Finally, tiger lake launched with 4 cores, so it couldn’t keep up with m1 and mobile Ryzen 5000 in multithreaded heavy benchmarks, but tiger lake h with up to 8 cores is out, and it smokes m1 in multithreaded tasks and has taken the gaming crown from AMD, according to a recent Linus Tech Tips review of the 11800H.
-
Android 12's 'Material You' UI focuses on customizable colors
Looks beautiful to me. Give the user choice. Apple likes to decide for the user, but a customizable interface is a good thing if the user wants that too.
-
Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks
My argument isn’t whether the 30 percent cut is too high or low, I know that’s Epic’s argument. My hang up is with the restriction put into place on what Netflix (and other developers) can tell users.Xed said:
And if that was a one-off purchase that would be fine, but since all the updates go through the curated store it's really just piggybacking on Apple for their support and infrastructure and then paying them their due once costs are involved. Do you think the store would work if everything was a $0 cost through Apple and then all other costs for the customer being deal on the side with a very clear conflict of interest while still always going through Apple for App updates? I don't see how it could.hackintoisier said:
I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point.Xed said:
So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?hackintoisier said:When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous.But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc.
That isn't to say that there's not an argument for saying Apple takes too high of a cut, but you haven't made that argument or factored in how much other stores take for the same or even less service. And let's not forget how much app stores charged before the Apple introduced the App Store for iOS.Remember, Apple doesn’t actually restrict Netflix’s business model… of opting not to use in app purchases. The only thing Apple restricts is a notification from Netflix on where/how the user may sign up for a subscription. If the business model (of not using IAP) is allowed, then what’s point of disallowing a note to users of where/how to sign up for a subscription? The only thing that’s being accomplished in the end is confusion for the user.If the loss of in app payments is hurting Apple’s ability to manage the App Store, it could raise its fees on developers of a certain size to recoup the costs. They can then bake the costs of doing business with Apple into their subscription fees and so on to ensure Apple gets its cut, and the developer earns a profit.I also support the idea of other App Stores because there are developers out there with a different idea of what an app can be than what Apple may think. For example, Wi-Fi Explorer to analyze your radio environment so you can know which Wi-Fi channels to use and which to avoid. No such app exists in the iOS App Store. But they do exist on android and even on the Mac App Store. If people are willing to pay for such an app in an alternative App Store, why should Apple be allowed to restrict such trade? Such an app is not harmful, it’s actually helpful. This is the question governments are going to grapple with.I know this is a hard question to deal with because of the potential for piracy, and porn which is harmful to children, and so on. I get it. It’s a very sensitive topic. But safari is a free app that can be used to access porn and other illicit content, yet it comes by default on the phone. From my point of view, on balance, I prefer a more open system.We will see how this topic is resolved. Very interesting.
-
Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks
I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point.Xed said:
So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?hackintoisier said:When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous.But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc.
