ranson

foregoneconclusion said:

LOL…you can play NBA2K on ATV but they can’t get their emulator to run?

The difference is that a download of NBA2K from the app store will include all of the game assets in the app, so the game itself is not subject to this max 500K limitation and will happily play. Conversely, emulators can't ship with actual games (ROMs) in the app distribution (since they are copyrighted). The user must load the game ROMs into the system, and Apple does not provide a persistent storage solution for downloadable content or misc file like these ROMs.

So to be clear, the emulators work and runs just fine as-is. But imagine a situation where after a few weeks of everything going great, the AppleTV decides to just randomly delete some or all of the ROMs that the user had loaded in.

That is what can happen and why there is a deterrent to developing apps/games on AppleTV that make use of DLC. This is not just a problem for emulators, but for any app or game that has downloadable content separate from the core app distribution. The same can happen to you on streaming video apps that allow downloads for offline viewing. Those downloads are not guaranteed to be around if the device decides to purge the cache. Apple should just allow up to 10GB (space permitting) for persistent data files.

I'm glad AI decided to write about this project. The story first appeared on ArsTechnica last night (where Malcom probably first learned of it but chose not to give a shoutout), and over there they have much more detail into how it was made. It's not just that the dude designed and 3D printed a chassis, but rather that he demonstrated a very high level skill across multiple disciplines. The recreation took many months of painstaking work. The hardware and electrical engineering involved is particularly impressive. For example, the 10" 4:3 LCD screen he procured came with a nonfunctioning CFL backlight; it was refurbished and updated with more modern LED backlights. I definitely recommend watching the full video if you have 48 minutes to spare.

aderutter said:

They can choose the real App Store so no problem. They should be grateful to Apple. 

These are developers who spend weeks and weeks of their own time, receiving absolutely no compensation (and even having to fork over $100 to Apple for a developer account) to create a FREE APP that will never make them a penny. But yes, they should be so grateful to Apple for hopefully letting their app go in to the Apple-blessed App Store. And they won't even know if it is blessed until after they have spent those weeks completing/submitting the app and Apple has had a chance to review it. And all that work could be for naught if Apple rejects it on a whim.

And so they should be grateful to Apple if it is approved for the official App Store? No. Apple, and the people who would use the app, should be grateful to the developer for putting in the time and taking the risk to offer the product of their work, all while asking for NOTHING in return.

Good effing grief.

lowededwookie said:

Firefox is a has-been browser that has failed due to its own incompetence.

Its own code is hugely buggy, insecure, and resource intensive which is why Apple forced WebKit engines only on iOS devices.

Firefox had its time years ago.

Hell, even Opera ditched its own engine for Chromium as did Microsoft. Not that I think Chromium is better. I refuse to use Chrome and Google is not making me desire it with the stupid systems being implemented. But I’d prefer a Chromium browser to a Mozilla engined browser any day.

This is a really hot take, and I'm not sure what the point is of bashing an open source browser that is being maintained and improved by a community of volunteers.

It is unfortunate that more mainstream users (including myself) do not use Firefox, because it is actually a decent browser that is quite privacy-conscious.

"Hugely buggy" is certainly untrue - it objectively has about as many bugs and vulnerabilities as chrome and safari - measured by outstanding bug reports + cadence of issues fixed.

"Insecure" is patently false. In fact, a quick stroll over to any browser-related forum on ArsTechnica - a community of the most technical folks on the internet - shows that a measurable portion of the community has consciously switched from Chrome to Firefox in the last year - _because_ it is viewed by them as more secure and private. Firefox is the preferred browser of most Linux users. In fact, Safari could arguably be the _least_ secure, since it cannot currently be patched without a Apple issuing a new minor or bugfix OS release, whereas the others only require an update to the browser application itself. Meaning that actively exploited vulnerabilities can linger longer on Apple devices due to the time it takes them to publish an OS release and the time it takes most users to patch an OS versus getting automated app updates overnight while charging the device. And on iOS, since all browsers must use the OS-provided webkit library, that makes all browsers on iOS inherently more insecure than those browsers's releases on other platforms - and the browser maker can't even do anything about it (!!!). What Apple is doing with webkit lock-in on iOS should be illegal (and someday will be).

There was definitely a time where the quality/performance of FF was suspect. But over the last 5 or so years, they have largely rejoined the pack in those matters. It certainly hurt them at the time. But Mozilla's contention now (about which they are correct) is that, despite having a comparable browser to the rest of the pack, the largest forces in desktop and mobile OSes are making it increasingly harder for users to choose a browser other than one offered by the OS maker. That is exactly what got Microsoft in trouble in the late 90's over Internet Explorer, which cost them billions in antitrust fines.

chasm said:

Here’s what will happen:

1, Alternative App Stores will eventually open in Europe. Apple will still have some level of approval/control on how they run their business. Curious people will go check it out.

Apple has full control of how they run their business. This regulation does not take away from that. But users have a right to install whatever they want on their devices without any say, involvement or control from Apple - or any particular government for that matter - so long as it does not facilitate criminal activity. While I would never provide my contact or payment info to a shady app store, I can certainly see a situation where there might be an App or Game that Apple has declined to list in its store (or outright banned) that I'd like to install from a reputable source. For example, I do not currently play any Epic video games, but perhaps at some point I may; and Apple has banned them. Right now, Apple is the gatekeeper with final say over what I can and cannot install on my phone. My phone is my property, so that gatekeeper should be me, and me alone.