I was at WWDC for the Vision Pro launch and asked someone a technical question about tvOS. He said, 'ah, [Jim] could answer that, but he isn't here today'. When I asked if anyone else from tvOS was here the reply was, '[Jim] is the only person on tvOS' and I am pretty sure he was serious.
I’ve heard this kind of thing about Apple fairly regularly (the iTunes Remote app comes to mind). While there are issues to large teams, I feel like there is a middle ground that doesn’t result in a single point of failure. What happens when Jim wins the lottery?
It seems like Apple could very easily turn the AppleTV into a proper game console, but not with only one person on it. I guess it’s still just a “hobby” for them.
> It seems like Apple could very easily turn the AppleTV into a proper game console
Apple could turn the Mac, iPad or Vision Pro into a proper gaming console, too. It's just not something they are willing to do, no matter how well-positioned they are for it.
Apple wants you to buy your games through the App Store, so they can take the 30%, which means competing with Steam. Which means getting licensed games on the App Store.
Apple already fought one such license war over music and won. They're currently doing Apple TV as well.
However, for the gaming industry they're complete strangers. Unlike music (which is mostly made on Mac) and TV/Movies (which are often made on Mac, at least partly), gamedev is very much Windows focused.
Pushing for ports and licenses is an uphill battle, and probably not one Apple wants to take on. They have plenty of other profitable ventures.
Especially in the last few years, preservation has been a big topic. Gamers want their purchases to keep working in the future, not being broken by an OS update as it often happens with macOS (compared to Windows)
A lot of game industry operates on a "release and move on" model; nobody has time to keep updating an old game hardly anyone buys instead of working on a new thing. On PC and console this is fine because your games keep working more or less indefinitely.
But the vast majority of the games I've purchased on iOS can't be installed anymore. It's not great. In some cases the games still function, but I can't download them on new devices because the developer closed shop and disabled their Apple account.
I think you’re responding to “gaming” and thinking of AAA titles which are flashy and splashy but are a smaller market than mobile games. I guess gp might have been thinking of mobile or casual where Apple does have a significant stake and interest but no appreciable focus.
I'm thinking of gaming as in Steam, including indies, AA and AAA.
Of course Apple is doing perfectly fine for mobile gaming, and is giving more than enough tools to developers to implement mobile games perfectly well.
I am talking about PC gaming, and more specifically modern DXVK/Wine support. There's no need for ports, as the Steam Deck showed.
Apple Silicon GPUs are all capable of supporting Vulkan 1.3 and translating DirectX code. Proton 11 supports ARM/FEX natively, which would make Apple Silicon a first-class citizen if you use Asahi drivers. macOS users will be stuck with Game Porting Toolkit and it's lackluster support; iPad/AppleTV/iPhone users have no options whatsoever, presumably to redirect their attention to the App Store that Apple profits from so handsomely.
This is entirely a misleading point. DXVK, Wine and Proton are full of patches that exist to support individual games.
It is not just a translation layer, as much as a great effort of the open source community to force-port every game in existence to Linux. The effort also includes stuff like ntsync that gives the Linux kernel Windows-y APIs for performance.
I doubt Apple has any interest in any of that. I don't really blame them.
And purely in principle, why are we all going through so much effort to save game devs from writing good OS-independent arch-independent code?
That is the point. Valve is maintaining the patches; Apple has to do nothing besides support compliant Vulkan 1.2+ drivers (which their community already does).
Apple doesn't need to implement ntsync to support Proton or DXVK, either. macOS' synchronization primitives do the job just as well as esync or fsync does.
> why are we all going through so much effort to save game devs from writing good OS-independent arch-independent code?
Because Apple doesn't support OS-independent APIs. They also don't support old runtimes, so users will inevitably have to run the Windows version once the native code breaks.
Valve ported several of their games natively to macOS, and almost every single one of them is broken on modern Macs. Valve didn't change the game tech, it's all runtime breakage.
From what I understand you're saying that Apple should provide 2 things: (1) Vulkan drivers and (2) backwards compatibility forever.
I don't really know enough about graphics to discuss point (1). From what I understand, Apple GPUs don't really fit the Vulkan model too cleanly, and the Asahi Vulkan drivers are significantly less performant than Metal (how much of that is due to beta/community status vs. architectural bottleneck I have no idea).
But let's say they provide (1).
Providing (2) would simply be a big mistake. It is a huge mistake of Windows, of the C++ programming language and of the x86 ISA (none of which are very good). Linux distros do not provide this either, beyond the core kernel syscalls and glibc. It is certainly a very big ask and not something trivial.
I'm only asking for (1); Apple can keep breaking APIs forever as long as they support the libraries that enable Proton.
(2) is precisely the reason why nobody can port games to macOS anymore, and largely why ARM is a second-class citizen in PC gaming too. You cannot depreciate things like AVX or 32-bit library execution modes, and then demand native builds get made to 20-year-old games. Apple Silicon's ISA extensions like AMX are not a replacement for x86's SIMD extensions, it's not standardized through Arm or supported in Asahi either. Native Mac games need to incorporate Apple's proprietary and unstable tech like Metal and the Apple Silicon microarchitecture, which makes their games unstable and difficult to support in the long term. Translation is Apple Silicon's only choice for game preservation and mainstream game support.
> Apple GPUs don't really fit the Vulkan model too cleanly
This is a misconception that stems from Metal's preference for tile-based deferred rendering pipelines. Vulkan 1.3 is fully viable on the M1 onward, which is enough to support DirectX 12 translation in Proton. The performance of Asahi's drivers are not any worse than the official Vulkan drivers that Arm provides for TBDR-optimized GPUs like the Mali line.
Games should simply not be written for a particular architecture. The rendering part of the game engine should already be abstracted away from the particular rendering API (there are other significant platforms which do not support Vulkan: PS5 and Xbox, which your game should be capable of targeting). And the math library should have fallbacks to standard C (or standard C++ etc.) and then specialized implementations for AVX, NEON, SVE, etc.
Nothing else needs to be architecture specific.
Now, sure, NEON is slower than AVX-256/512. But backending to NEON or even standard C is certainly going to be faster than running stuff over an x86-to-ARM translation layer.
Sooner or later the Steam Deck 2 will release, probably on an ARM platform (if the Steam Frame compatibility layers go well), and millions upon millions upon millions of dollars of electricity will simply be wasted running x86-to-ARM, Win32-to-Linux and Direct3D-to-Vulkan dynamic compatibility layers when, if the games were well written in the first place, they could simply be trivially recompiled.
> 32-bit library execution modes
If your application assumes pointers are 32-bits, or any particular size, or even any set of particular sizes, it's completely broken.
As for (1), if Asahi Vulkan drivers are really good, that just goes to show why Apple isn't supporting Vulkan. Metal applications seem to be faster, and Apple wants to push devs to make their apps for the faster API.
You're welcome to disagree with me about (2), I don't care what macOS picks in this regard. It's not going to help games get ported to macOS or Apple Silicon any faster. There are hundreds of thousands of video games that will never be updated again, macOS will never support these games without translation. Your ideal world where programmers support and recompile games 3 decades after release does not exist in reality. This is why efforts like WoW64 and FEX exist in the first place; you will never recompile the majority of Windows games. Ever.
(1) is just common sense. Go ask your favorite LLM; does hardware-level TBDR optimization degrade basic Vulkan support? No, it doesn't, and we have dozens of mobile GPUs that support Vulkan to prove it. Metal is not "faster" and it's architecture does not preclude high-performance Vulkan drivers in any way. If you don't believe me, ask anyone else.
> millions upon millions upon millions of dollars of electricity will simply be wasted running x86-to-ARM, Win32-to-Linux and Direct3D-to-Vulkan dynamic compatibility layers when
x86-to-ARM doesn't have to be slow. Accelerators like Apple's AMX can leverage autovectorization during translation, which is significantly faster than NEON and potentially more efficient than x86 SIMD.
D3D-to-Vulkan and Win32-to-Linux is almost always more power-efficient for most GPUs/games. Wine is much thinner than a full-fat Windows runtime, and DXVK can translate DirectX code into batched calls with a shader cache even if the game itself doesn't support it. Do you think the Steam Deck runs games better on Windows, somehow?
For casual kids gaming, Apple TV and Apple Arcade is a fantastic combo. It's been plenty enough to keep my kid occupied, using hardware I already owned.
It streams videos. It works. I'd rather they don't mess with it.
However, the guy who decided to put a useless button on the side of the remote that interrupts whatever you're watching, should get fired immediately. It's almost every day I grab the remote and press it by accident, and have to switch back to what I was watching, and resume playback, because Netflix exits out of the stream.
Sadly, Apple TV is the only Hollywood-approved streaming device that isn't a total trash heap.
If you think the purpose of living your one single life in the universe is to become a CEO, you have a failure of imagination and should likely be debanked to protect society.
Calling it anti-competitive ignores the reality: Apple built and maintains the entire iOS ecosystem (hardware, software, security, developer tools, everything). The new EU-compliant model does allow sideloading and external payments, but with reasonable fees to help support that infrastructure. That’s not abuse; it’s Apple defending the integrity of its platform while still giving developers and users more choice. No one is forced to use iOS, but if you do, it’s fair that Apple sets the terms for its own system.
Apple gets payment when people buy their phones, are you suggesting that the cost of those things are not built into that cost? Especially considering how much they make on certain things such as storage increases?
Are you suggesting the cost of an iPhone is not able to cover the minimal updates made to the phone over the lifetime of it? How do the justify the cost of the Mac App Store fees? When they put zero effort in to it?
I did used to write software professionally and no, we traditionally charged per update but each update was significant and worthwhile. Any bugs or safety issues were of course fixed for free. We never moved to the subscription model which has in my view instigated these methods. I am not of the view each iOS update is significant. Now I occasionally have to write software for my current role but it isn't the main job and I release it for free as it is quite niche and I would prefer it is out there.
If the ongoing costs are a problem, they should charge a subscription to have continued access to the app store. Or a subscription fee for their operating system updates.
Disney boasts a diverse array of partnerships across various industries, and I believe that this specific collaboration won't adversely impact Disney's already formidable alliance with Apple. On the contrary, there's reason for enthusiasm regarding the possibility of Disney venturing into new territories where they haven't historically been prominent players. The prospect of Disney making substantial investments in these uncharted areas could lead to exciting developments and innovations, further strengthening their overall position in the market.
Oversimplified negativity towards Disney and Epic Games doesn't capture their diverse contributions. A more nuanced view and consideration of both positives and negatives is advisable.
I agree that you can't make this that simple, you never know what will happen. But I have been in the game business as a developer/ publisher / whatever for decades and worked for Disney. Disney more then any other company I know of (maybe except EA) has squandered its opportunities and acquisitions in the game space consistently. Disney Interactive has died and been recreated I think three times in my career. If I started to make a list of all the game companies or game adjacent (Maker Studio) I probably would miss a bunch. And none of them worked. Disney has a really strong culture that has not in the past fit well with the video game business.
Correct, I forgot that. They never launched them as a free accessory for guests to help with payments/room key/FastPass/admission/data collection though, like MyMagic+ at Disney World. They are mostly a wearable ticket now (and I presume they can be used as room keys/payments at Disneyland too, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been there).
Yes, that's generally correct. If you were to toss a solar mass of water into the sun, it would become fuel for the sun's fusion reactions. Fusion reactors work in a similar way, but on a much smaller scale. They use fuel, typically hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and helium, and use intense heat and pressure to fuse the atoms together, releasing a large amount of energy in the process.
reply