Yup, reading through that forum, it sounds as if the person who posted it up has admitted that it's a custom fake design. Plus, there's the fact that we know roughly what the actual device originally looked like, and it was quite a bit different. The original device was an add-on to the SNES, not a single-product hybrid console like this fake.

I totally knew it was a conspiracy!

Oh, you big silly: there are no people in proper markets. As with socialism, they are an abstraction.
The task, then, is to implement something that can operate around 80% of the way there, most of the time.

A properly functioning market would seek a Pareto Optimal point.
Note that I'm not accusing our market of functioning properly.

I was expecting Nader/Gore. Just like you can expect Trump to go independent. Why would you not fund a spoiler on the other side? Simple politics.

The idea is all well and good (and yes, I get the reference, this isn't a "whooosh", just a serious response to a joke post), but maybe we need to overcome some more basic issues first, such as stopping machines from labelling people as gorillas.

Maybe we can agree that we have about shag-all to prove in either direction.

I love you, man.

It's unclear what, if anything, you meant by any of that. Sorry, sir.

I'm cozy where I reside. The burden of proof with you. I have a 'burden' of laughter directed at you, I suppose.

I find out more about my theology through you and d_r than pretty much anyone else. Thanks, gents. Both of you stay lovely.

You're going to have to instruct me how I'm supposed to feel about this accusation, because I'm all Rhett Butler here.

I mean, of course I'm ashamed of my sin. As for you, personally: you blew up the benefit of the doubt long ago. Nothing about morality requires I be a doormat, and I've stood falsely accused enough by you that I always figure that you're setting me up.
Sure, I forgive you. For the past. But the idea that I have some "moral kick-me" in place is specious. Pre-judging you? Only of being human, sir.

Morality is wholly positive; prejudice, negative. Thus, I deem "moral prejudice" an oxymoron.
Morality is fertilizer for the soul. Amorality is nihilism. As C.S. Lewis answered your piffle: “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning"

How does a post that gets almost all of its facts wrong get modded up as Insightful? You started on a provably faulty premise, backed it up with inaccurate statements regarding WebGL, and then closed it out by saying something that I'd have hoped most of us here would trivially recognize as incorrect.

Apple announced at the start of the year that they've paid out $25B to developers over the life of the App Store. Do some quick math, and that means that Apple is averaging $0.45B in revenue each quarter from the App Store, which would put it at <1% of their quarterly revenue (e.g. Apple posted $60B in revenue in their latest, post-Christmas quarter).

Which is to say, your basic premise here is that Apple is intentionally crippling the product that makes up 60% of their revenue (iOS hardware) in order to bolster the revenue in a segment that accounts for less than 1% of their revenue (App Store downloads). Seriously? Apple's main business isn't selling apps; it's selling selling devices that run apps, and you may even recall that back when the iPhone launched in 2007, the "apps" it supported were web apps, not native apps.

Could've fooled me. iOS 8 has been out for nearly a year at this point, and has had WebGL support from the beginning without any of the weird requirements you're talking about.

A) You're confused. You're talking about iAds (and I'll discuss why I know you are in a sec), but the iAd advertising network only operates in iOS apps, not on websites. Sites can't sign up to it.

B) It's not disabled. See above. WebGL support was available as an experimental feature in iOS 7, and as a standard feature in iOS8. No ads or other funny business required.

The reason you're confused is because, technically speaking, iOS did have support for WebGL as far back as iOS 4.2, but it was only available to iAd developers. By that, I don't mean people who agreed to put iAds in their app. I mean people who were actually making the iAds themselves, since iAds are basically just mini webpages that display an ad.

If that seems a bit weird at first glance, recall that WebGL was a resource-intensive feature on the devices of that day, and Apple has a history of restricting the scope or operation of resource-intensive features until the implementations or device capabilities improve (see: background processing, native apps on Apple Watch, etc.), so it made sense at the time why WebGL was restricted to iAds, since they were designed to only be on the screen for short periods of time yet could stand to gain the most from such a feature.

The only sense in which what you said is correct is that for a few years the only people who were able to make use of WebGL on iOS were the ones making the ads, but it was never a feature that web developers had to make a Faustian pact with Apple to use. It simply wasn't available to them.

They haven't both used "WebKit" since Google forked WebKit to create Blink over two years ago, but even before that, they weren't even running "the exact same core rendering software" for the last several years back when they were both running "WebKit".

Google and Apple have had divergent multi-process architectures for quite some time. Google built their multi-process architecture on top of the original WebKit (i.e. it's a part of Chromium, not WebKit), whereas Apple decided to bake the multi-process architecture directly into the rendering engine, which became WebKit2 and is at the core of Safari on iOS and OS X. Despite those differences, the two companies still tried to keep the engines in sync, but the difficulty in doing so (i.e. it wasn't trivial like you suggested) was one of the reasons why Google eventually decided to just fork WebKit and make Blink, since it wasn't worth their time.

I'm admittedly glossing over a lot of details since there's a lot of history here, but the long and short of it is that even when they were both running "the exact same core rendering software", they weren't actually running the exact same core rendering software, and it wasn't always trivial to port all of the changes back and forth. They both started from the same stuff, but it's been over five years since they diverged in major ways.

Any more faulty premises backed up by untruths you'd like to share?