Well I was planning to get a new iPhone that fully supports Apple Intelligence, but if Apple can’t swallow their pride by properly opening up their platform but would rather leave out headlining features, I guess I won’t.

No one is forcing people to use Apple devices. That’s not what this is about.

It’s about other services trying to reach potential customers that happen to be using an iPhone. Spotify has to go through the App Store if they want to reach any customers on the second largest mobile platform. And Apple themselves have a lot of advantages concerning integrating their own music streaming service into the OS while Spotify is limited by the rules Apple sets, including taking 30% of any subscription made through the App Store.

So it’s just a worse Analogue Pocket for almost the same price…?

So I guess Apple’s stupid “Core Technology Fee” definitely has to go.

The way this sounds though maybe a lot more has to change though. Maybe their whole verification process is unlawful as well.

Are you talking about using the phone as a camera for taking pictures or for using it as a webcam?

For the former, you can just take a photo and AirDrop it, you don’t need to be signed in to the same Apple ID.

For the latter, I’ve used DroidCam in the past. It’s not as smooth sailing as the Continuity feature, but it gets the job done.

Yeah well because Apple doesn’t allow JIT compilation, so the performance would’ve sucked anyway.

It’s not just a (dumb) terminal, it’s a shell environment. It even has a package manager (apk).

Sadly no.

I think you can’t add custom rules in the free version or something.

AdGuard + Vinegar blocks YouTube ada quite well most of the time.

AdGuard Pro

Exactly. Not only is it too expensive, but it doesn’t have a “universal” killer app or use case. What I mean by that is something a lot of people could use it for.

There are quite a few use cases for the device, but many of them are edge cases. For example I think the Keynote (Apple’s PowerPoint) virtual presentation mode is a great way to practice a presentation (you stand in a large room with the presentation behind you on a canvas and an audience in front of you), but how often are most people going to need it?

I personally loved the F1 demo one guy made with a 3D track map with the option to glimpse at onboards an whatnot. But how large of an audience would that have outside of hardcore F1 fans? Still, immersive live sports would probably be a thing, but without a large user base the broadcasters won’t bother making an elaborate (and costly) stream with added features exclusive to Vision Pro.

I’m not sure if Apple can fix this by “simply” releasing a second generation model, even if it somehow came at just half the price.

Yes and then I’ve to refresh the App every 7 days…

Or you could pay Apple 98,99€ per year for a developer account (just like you suggest the developer of Delta should do with another account) and sign it for 365 days instead of 7.

Yeah, that would be a weird thing to do (and expensive), but as I said the emulator itself is completely free and the developer offers a more convenient way to install it in the EU via their own AltStore PAL for a tiny fee.

If you don’t agree with that, you’re on your own installing this app (well, the non-PAL AltStore actually helps you a lot in the process). The company making sideloading so difficult is Apple. Or you know, just don’t install Delta and move on.

Even as much as calling the developers’ decision “bullshit” comes off as super entitled. They owe you nothing and get flak for it. There’s nothing wrong with asking the developer in a friendly way if they could publish the app on the EU App Store, but it’s their decision after all.

They could’ve got around that in multiple ways. What you see a lot is people having multiple developer accounts with different Apps, you see this all around the App Store with major companies.

Sure they could’ve gone out of their way to create another developer account which also costs another yearly fee of 98,99€. I fail to understand why anyone would feel entitled enough to even consider the developer should pay that just so people can download a free/low price, completely optional app from an ever-so-slightly more convenient store front.

Another thing is, as I said, I know he “had” to agree to the new terms in order to have the AltStore BUT, why is he gatekeeping from the EU App Store then? Why can’t he distribute in both places and charge the 1.50€ on the EU App Stores?

They chose not to. Simple as that. I agree that they could distribute it in the EU App Store, but even then a subscription would be required to cover costs (after 1 million installs, which I wouldn’t be surprised if this app crosses that number somewhat quickly) as the core technology fee is per annual install, meaning it is reoccurring unless users uninstall the app.

Don’t forget the recent Yuzu lawsuit as well. While we’re not sure of the exact details of the settlement, part of what made Yuzu vulnerable to a takedown was the fact that they paywalled (beta versions of) the emulator. Commercializing Delta could potentially attract Nintendo lawyers for all we know. The current 1,50€ fee isn’t for the emulator, it’s for the AltStore itself.

The fee might be unfair but as you said in order to release Clip he had to accept it. Gatekeeping from the App Store is much worse, it’s his own decision and very bad taste one. C’mon we’re talking the guy who spend years bitching that Apple wouldn’t allow people to chose from where they get apps and now he’s the one forcing people into (his) single store? The more things change the more they stay the same.

You can also install it via the non-PAL AltStore or you can sideload it manually by signing the app manually, no store required. You could also create a US Apple ID to download the app from the App Store (remember how you suggested the developer could just get multiple developer accounts?).

Did you read my post correctly? I wrote this in my comment:

[…] if you want to publish any of your apps via an alternative app marketplace, you need to agree to the new EU-specific Apple terms for all your apps, […]

And then you quote part of that sentence out of context, stating basically the same thing I was stating (in the full version of my sentence):

This isn’t correct. You only have to agree if you plan do have access to new features such as alternative app stores, […]

So my sentence is correct, as long as you quote the whole thing.

And - as I stated in my previous comment as well - the developer has another app besides Delta (called “Clip”) that isn’t allowed on the App Store, so they have to agree with the EU-specific terms to publish Clip via their marketplace, but this agreement in turn also affects Delta. That’s just how it works.

So sure, they could’ve decided to not agree to the new terms, but then they couldn’t have released Clip (or only via self-signed sideloading like before).

How am I wrong here?

They have one other app on their store though: a clipboard manager that runs in the background somehow, which apparently wouldn’t/wasn’t allowed on the App Store.

You’d think they could just release Delta in the App Store and the other app in their marketplace then, but if you want to publish any of your apps via an alternative marketplace, you need to agree to the new EU-specific Apple terms for all your apps, whether or not they are distributed through the App Store. So the 50 cent core technology fee would still apply were Delta to be released on the EU App Store.

Some of you people get so salty because of your own cluelessness it’s sad.

What’s truly bullshit is Apple charging (and allowed to charge) what they call a core technology fee. I’d recommend pointing your frustration towards tcook@apple.com instead of one person trying to cover the cost they have and giving you an otherwise completely free emulator. You’re not entitled to get it for free, or at all.

Or via the new AltStore PAL for EU users.

I’d say it highly depends on the title. Not all games age well, maybe most didn’t. Nostalgia is definitely a factor when it comes to enjoyment of some of these games. I never played Zelda The Minish Cap before and I still enjoy it now, but maybe part of it is generic nostalgia for GameBoy type games. I’d also say GBA games are often more accessible than even older (say NES) games.

And graphically, sure, newer games look quite a lot better. This game didn’t get the remake treatment (yet) though. I disagree that there has to be a “balance” between visual effects and gameplay though (aside from prioritizing development resources). A game can have both amazing graphics and great gameplay mechanics. I also think great graphics and visual design can enhance the gameplay experience.

But I don’t know, I still enjoy the odd “retro” game every now and then.

I recently started playing Zelda The Minish Cap (GBA) on my PS Vita, and for me the appeal - especially with old handheld games - is the simplicity in terms of game mechanics.

The game only has like a dozen of equippable items, dialog with NPCs is very simple, there’s a lot of puzzles cleverly integrated into the map, a small trading system (forgot what it’s called, these round things where you match your half with an NPCs half), a few different collectibles (heart containers for example) and they pretty much made a very enjoyable game out of that.

Today, a lot of games come with a crafting system, some sort of hunger/food mechanic, complex character progression systems etc. And while I enjoy this a lot of the time, playing a well crafted game based on much simpler (and fewer) mechanics is a welcome change from time to time.

In terms of impact it had it’s the 2600/VCS (same thing) by far.