So what you're saying is, first Mac stole the idea, and managed to make a version of it nobody cared about, then MS stole it, and managed to make a series of OS that would go on to utterly dominate the market for the next 20+ years? What innovations for Apple are we talking about here exactly, because they seem to have innovated themselves into obscurity.

You're wrong rookie. The facts are there, it's up to you to look them up.

You can take my opinions as being the ultimate authority on this matter and I say you're wrong. All the facts are on Google, you're just not smart enough to understand them so I really can't be bothered with the trivialities of proving you wrong.

This is just a flat out lie. You keep using games like Angry Birds as your baseline when the people you are arguing against are quite clearly talking about far more graphically intense games. As computer performance gets pushed upwards, so do system requirements. We see a trend of ever increasing system requirements for any game that isn't an MMO trying to copy WoW's success. Then you come along, with absolutely no facts, evidence, or credibility, to tell us that it's actually heading in the opposite direction. You talk about this as if you're an expert, when you have already said you are a developer and have been an Apple fan since 1984. So now I can draw two conclusions. Option one is that you really are an expert. You're the only one who can see the change while other experts predict the exact opposite of you, and you're also capable of separating yourself from your clear Apple bias while making this analysis. You decide not to provide evidence or facts, not because you don't have them, but because providing said facts is too much work while repeatedly posting the same absurd claims for days on end in the same post is not. Or we could go with option two. You're an Apple fanboy to the extreme. You've worshipped them since 1984 and treat owning Apple products as a lifestyle. You dislike that people make all these claims that make the company you worship or the "lifestyle" it creates still isn't doing all that great in the market in question (PC gaming, or really PC in general). So you start making absurd claims, over and over, while ignoring all reality checks or any evidence contradicting you, in hopes that you can "win" the argument through sheer persistence. If you simply keep posting the same stuff over and over ad infinitum, eventually everybody else will give up, or the thread will simply get locked, without you ever having to give ground. You'd argue black is white if Apple said it was.

Could you give me some specifics? In what ways will every single aspect of my digital life be improved? That's a pretty strong claim, so I'm curious as to what I'm missing out on exactly.

On the contrary, I've been in the same guild for my entire time in WoW, which has been since launch. I've spent a huge chunk of my time in this guild as guild leader (although I was not the founder), and even more as raid leader (I still do). I enjoy playing with these people, they enjoy playing with me, they enjoy having me as raid leader. At no point do I believe that if I quit tomorrow, they would all fall apart and be helpless without me, someone else would step up, life would go on. I'm not delusional or arrogant enough to think that my presence in the game is the only reason they stick around.

Uh, what? Chrome is generally considered one of the most secure browsers. This is really rather irrelevant. If you weren't guild leader, someone else would be in your place. I hope you don't think you're so important to the lives of those 200 people that they can't continue gaming without you.

I'm sorry was that supposed to impress me? You make it sound as if this certifies you as being knowledgeable about this stuff, but it doesn't at all. It means you filled out a web form and paid a fee, nothing more. Do I need to fill out the form as well so I can say "I'm an Apple developer and you're wrong?" Let's see the AAA video games you've worked on, then you can tell us how this is similar to making Sudoku for iPad.

Again, developing for an iPad and the likes is not the same. Developing a simple 2d sprite based game is downright trivial compared to even the most simple 3D games. For games aimed at those devices, coming up with a good idea matters more than anything. Actually implementing it isn't all that difficult, you just have to have a great idea for a game. It's why small time developers with a good idea will have a much easier time on a platform like that than on a desktop or console. You're comparing things like facebook games and browser games to AAA video games, when they're basically nothing alike. That's like saying a secretary is an expert programmer because he types a lot in word and programming involves a lot of typing. More nakpin math based on assumptions for EA to work with, yay! They can do the math, they've already done it, and made decisions based on that. Apparently this hugely important market share comes behind your grandma's 10 year old computer. The actual tangible stuff in here is something any person building their own computer can do as well, as for the rest, I can't roll my eyes hard enough. You talk about the electronics as if the Apple versions were hand crafted by god himself to ensure good quality when they all just come from the same assembly line.

I don't know how anyone could claim developing for an Iphone is effectively the same as developing for a desktop using OSX. Night and day doesn't even begin to describe it. The only way I could see someone believing these two are at all related is incredibly levels of drinking Apple coolaid or just total and utter ignorance about software development. In your case, I think it may actually be both. Just so we're clear, constantly repeating this is not going to make it any more real. You can keep embracing ignorance all you want, but sooner or later you're gonna have to realize your little dream world didn't come true.

I'm guessing you have absolutely no idea how games development actually works, if you think there's any sort of overlap between programming for an Iphone and a desktop. There really isn't. The only overlap you could claim is the same overlap between all programming, basic programming knowledge and being able to turn a concept into logical code. Heck, they're entirely different fields. When a company looks for some senior programmer or the likes for their video game, they do not look for people who design games on a phone, they don't care, those people may have plenty of experience too, but none of it is relevant. The only overlap here is basic programming experience, nothing more. You seem to be working under the impression that Mac iOS and OSX use entirely different programming languages than PC's do, which is completely not the case. The programming languages are the same. Libraries and API's used are different, but those are mostly system specific. Programming for a phone will not help you any further in that regard if you moved on to OSX. Even if iOS was the only operating system for phones, and the gaming market for it was huge, there would still be zero overlap between the two, and desktop games would keep being designed for Windows based machines, not Macs. The dream world you live in, where OSX will overtake Windows as the most popular PC platform for games just is not realistic. Apple makes absolutely no attempts to support gaming at all, so why on earth would games move there? Software wise, Macs are downright terrible for games development. The hardware can, sure. The software can't, because Apple won't let it. Why would a developer bother developing for a platform that is held in an iron grip by a company that doesn't care one bit about accommodating gamers.

Except that games for phones are in an entirely different league than those for PC or Console, and always will be. This has basically nothing to do with games like SW:TOR, which are not designed, and will never be designed, for phones. Yeah man, the giant companies with an army of people paid specifically to figure this stuff out haven't seen it, but you the lone guy has figured it all out. Where would this world be without you? This depends on what someone is looking for. I don't buy a phone for some sort of transcending experience, it's a friggin phone. The reason Google's Android is doing so well, despite starting so many years later, is because many users want freedom with their phones, which Android is willing to give them, unlike Apple where you're lucky you don't have to fill out 12 forms just to get the right to answer a phone call on your phone. Meanwhile instead of recognizing this, Jobs spent his time raging about the betrayal of Google. It's funny that Apple first took off with a 1984 commercial and has since become the closest representation of an Orwellian universe in electronic gadgets. But anyway, enough derailing, good luck with the Mac version for SW:TOR and all that.

It means that Apple can lose the OS race again, only to Google instead of Microsoft this time?

Why do people still keep parroting the "Macs are more secure" line. Both OSX and Win are vulnerable to exploits, this is highly unlikely to ever change. All you can do is practice some common sense and keep your OS up to date. If you still doubt OSX can ever be exploited, look up Charlie Miller (the security researcher). For each year's Pwn2own he's been able to gain full control over a computer running the latest version of OSX by having it visit a website using the latest version of Safari. Just visiting a website, no stupid downloads or anything. If you are buying a Mac because you truly believe OSX and Safari cannot be exploited, you're just buying into the BS they try to feed you in their commercials (specifically the mac vs pc ones). Really, I don't care what kind of computer you want to buy, just don't spread misinformation about Macs being more secure or not crashing. Neither computer is secure, and both are plenty capable of crashing (which often has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the software you're running containing some rare crash bugs). Either computer, when maintained well, will continue to run great without issues, and with a little bit of common sense, both are perfectly safe for a normal user. The decision about Mac vs PC running another OS should be about which OS you prefer, and what you plan to use the computer for. Gaming is part of that consideration, if you buy a Mac, you have to accept that you are buying a platform that gets limited support for gaming (both from games developers and Apple themselves).

There's so many different things going on at once in this topic. There's the back and forth fight of Mac vs PC, which includes all the typical arguments directly from Mac commercials (impossible to hack, doesn't crash, etc) that have basically zero impact on any end user with a clue because both systems can be exploited and neither is particularly likely to be exploited if you're just a home user who applies a little bit of common sense before downloading random things. Then we have some Mac fans who are telling us that the age of the Mac is about to start, where all PC's are replaced by Macs and Mac becomes the primary gaming platform. This is happening right now, but I guess one of the biggest giants in the gaming industry didn't get the memo because not only did they design for PC first, they don't even have an ETA on the Mac version. After that have math about how profitable it would be for EA to do this, because apparently it had never occurred to EA that they could sell copies to Mac users, so nobody over there had done this math yet. Thank god for the napkin math based on half a dozen assumptions, now they'll be able to develop a business strategy using that information. Lastly we have PC users who stubbornly refuse to see any reason for Macs to exist at all and want Apple/Mac to just die off in an attitude that is just as snobbish and elitist as the one they accuse Mac users of having. Weeee!

I don't understand how people can keep arguing Macs are good gaming platforms too. I'm sure Mac has powerful hardware, and that's important, but it's incredibly silly to pretend that's the only thing that matters. Software plays a huge role in this as well, especially when it comes to graphics. Let's look at two important aspects of that, the graphics API and the video card driver. Microsoft has plenty of reason to keep working on improving DirectX. For one, it's a good way to try and keep Windows as the primary gaming platform for computers, plus with the way they keep making a new version of Windows required for higher versions of DirectX, they also encourage people to upgrade their OS. Their competition here is open source API's, which will always struggle to offer as much as a product backed by a company that has a vested interest in keeping their product at the top. Then there's video card drivers. Go take a look at video card driver updates. Nvidia and ATI spend a huge amount of time working with games developers to optimize their drivers for specific games, and are often able to get very significant improvements in performance simply by tuning their drivers to run the game most efficiently. Again, it's in their best interest as a company to keep making these drivers better, because we, as gamers, can pick which company to go with. What does Mac have in this category? Nothing really. There's nothing driving anyone to push software optimization for Mac hardware. Even if we accept one of the typical arguments of "Mac hardware is better", it still doesn't matter because software plays a huge role as well. It's like trying to hammer in a nail with a sledgehammer, sure it might work, but you could just get a normal hammer which does a much better job at half the price.

And how does this fit into PvE?

This would ruin the flow of combat to such an extreme degree that the only way you could ever even consider mentioning it is because you have absolutely no experience with any class that primarily uses skills with activation timers. This wouldn't matter much one way or the other. If you have to move halfway through a skill cast, odds are the movement will take longer than the ~0.8 or so seconds left on the GCD. Sure, just as soon as your skills take resources if you hit them while out of range/facing wrong way. Sounds absurd? Yeah so does this one. Impossible. If channeled skills are going to scale with alacrity, they need to tick based on an interval determined by alacrity. The advantage of instant casts is the ability to use them on the move. Why on earth would people bother with skills with activation (which are more limited in nature) if you're just gonna make instants more powerful, it makes no sense at all.

When stuff is on farm clearing in one night is common, sure. First run at it? Yeah no. One also has to consider the variety. Cata's opening bosses felt far more varied because they both took more time to learn and were more unique in terms of mechanics/gameplay. Another clueless person who thinks watching a video of normal modes is the same as clearing hard modes. Did you realize the people with an actual clue about this have said heroic Ragnaros was the hardest fight WoW has ever seen? But hey, some random dude on the internet said it was easy so it must be true, after all he has probably seen a video of it and thought it looked pretty easy. The only challenging part of SW:TOR operations is the bugs, not the encounters. If the encounters were challenging and gear took a while to acquire, you'd see a whole lot less complaining about no end game. SW:TOR screwed up the gear grind by giving it all away. Also if someone actually enjoys going for achievements (and there's plenty who do), it sounds like a pretty good thing to add. You give people a little pop up and some points that don't really do anything and they'll enjoy your game for a longer period of time. It's a win-win, even if some people don't care about it. WoW manages to adequately appeal to both. Heroics are for the hardcores, LFR and normal mode for more casual people. SW:TOR holds little hardcore appeal because any hardcore raid cleared nightmare within days (if not first day) of starting it. Your "facts" have a distinct lack of actual factual information in them and seem to have a large amount of personal opinions intended to criticize WoW for supposedly becoming too easy.

I have it on good authority that posts like this one only come from 12 year olds with brain damage. See generalizations are fun, wee!

Uh what? Early MMO's taught you nothing, you either researched them on websites, asked in game, or just stumbled around. Today MMO's slowly try to introduce you to the game, old MMO's it was like here's the game, good luck. I don't know how you can considering killing people and then looting their stuff something designed for casuals. Or how about having classes utterly dependent on grouping to level at all, with several of those classes not being terrible popular in groups? How about EQ's hell levels, some of which took so long even hardcore gamers playing every single day would take something like a week to level up once. Now picture this as casual, who must find a group to earn exp at all, on a class like ranger that were usually shunned from groups. Heck everybody would be 3 expansions ahead by the time that ranger got through 59. Nothing about old MMO's was designed for casual play. I mean we're talking about a time where having a computer wasn't much of a given, neither was internet. Everything about old MMO's was for hardcore gamers who were not afraid of a lot of brutal punishment.

Meaning you charge 100 dollars to run Spybot?

I know. It's actually pretty smart on Microsoft's part. Develop proprietary graphics API exclusive to your platform and push it hard. It sucks for Mac users of course, but I have no doubt this is one of the major reasons why many games remain Windows only, and probably in part helps Windows maintain it's strong market position. The point was the vicious circle it creates, not the nitpick of nobody versus "relatively few" or whatever word you'd prefer to see in there. The large overlap between Xbox 360 development and Windows development certainly helps here as well. I know, a huge chunk of Microsoft's market share is company computers, a ton of which probably still run XP. A laptop is great, but I don't really consider it a gaming computer. I would expect most gamers with an income to have both a desktop and laptop. Unless you need a Mac for specific programs (usually associated with your work) I personally do not see the point of having a Mac as desktop when PC for the most part is better supported by software developers.

Apple marketing played a huge role in creating this though. They portray it as if all the squares get a PC while all the cool kids get a Mac. Of course their marketing also pretends PC's crash all the time and are insecure while Macs are immune to crashes and have no security flaws (well Windows and OS X technically).

Because it's considered a worthwhile trade off? DirectX is almost the standard for PC game development now, and required for Xbox 360, game programmers are used to the API and know it very well, so when the decision of DirectX vs an alternative like OpenGL comes up, most seem to find the advantages of using the system they know over the system they don't know as well for the sake of appealing to a small(er) market with relatively few gamers to be great enough. If there was a high cost to this and the website wouldn't reach enough users then yeah, at some point a decision needs to be made whether or not it's even worth it. Maybe it is circular logic, maybe nobody makes games for Mac because Mac users don't play games, and Mac users don't play games because there's no games for Mac. Or maybe it's because OSX holds a small market share (something like 1/10th of Windows) with a lot of those Mac users not even being gamers. Who knows what the real situation is, all that matters for a company is that it's risky and unproven, so why would they take the risk unless they can afford to do so (like WoW did). Perhaps a better question is, why do you buy a Mac as a gamer? You should be aware of the situation, and know that Mac is just not a great choice as a gaming platform because it's largely unsupported.