Have you ported a desktop title to mobile? It is NOT trivial. This is the next step in a continuing chain of work that builds upon the next and next person's work, but this is not a trivial step. If it was so trivial, why hadn't it already been done?
The jump to Apple Silicon is net-new work, and they aren't trying to pretend they did more than they did.
> This fork — the iOS/iPadOS port (arm64-ios cross-build, DXVK-on-iOS, touch controls, app lifecycle, packaging) and engine fixes, offered upstream
They are even asking you to support the original creators on Steam, so they are getting a cut. No one is stealing assets. I would love to see more of this sort of work being done out in the wild, not discouraging it. Were previous steps harder? Absolutely. Doesn't that invalidate this step? No.
Alright, I'm ready. These are engineering motivations, as you said. So, which one of these isn't a cost center? Because an insurance policy would handle the first two, but probably cheaper. Customers have repeatedly proven they will buy the product lacking the trust. Resisting mass surveillance? They are the mass surveillance. Which is now a legal compliance based cost center.
It does do this to frustrate you, save 30 tokens, and then waste a few thousand more when it didn't get all the context it needed by grep'ping. You have to be involved in the process though. It frequently wants to do things that are so incorrect, that even if it would be more convenient to just totally ignore it, it would be insane to actually ignore it. Do you trust it to not accidentally rm -rf the .git/ right after it helpfully force pushes to remote? I don't. Even if I don't expect it to do that, why would I ALLOW it to be able to?
If they didn’t get canned, the slap on the wrist is the cost of doing business. If we all agree to investigate ourselves and we’re all very disappointed in what happened, what a shame!
If you say something is illegal and costs $X as a fine, you don’t curb behavior, they just bake the fine into their business model.
For that matter, the new models are shit. If I’m using Opus 4.6 anyway to get anything actually done, then great, we’re actually entirely caught up then.
Listen. I don’t care about evidence. I care about my lived experience for the product I paid for. I used the new product. It’s actively terrible. To the point of not being usable. We’re all ancedata, but what is “better evidence to the contrary”? The known and game-able benchmarks that they know they need to win at, so they train it to. It’s all he said, she said, which is the only reason we keep having this conversation.
Listen, you can say “but benchmarks, the benchmarks!” all day long, but consumer know when we are being sold a lemon. If it can’t do the most basic of things at least as good as it used to, this is table stakes. Nevermind that if you can’t do the basic stuff, how on earth can you be trusted with more?
I'd argue that 4.8 is a straight downgrade. For every type of task I've tried. It's been a gambit at this point. If 4.6 quits being available, I'm out at this point.
The interface designed for humans is poor for AI needs? And the interface designed for programmatic use is easier for the AI to use? In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
If you just made this, who is reviewing this? How many total reviews? Can we see the reviews? Did you get 100 5 stars and 10000 0-1 stars? Where did you find those customers? I understand that this is obviously megavibe coded, but is this just marketing lies?