I had a nook before I had an iPad. I use Safari on my iPad to buy books from Barnes & Noble which I then read on their iPad app. When I used Spotify I signed up via Safari so I wouldn’t have to pay an extra 30%. Is that wrong too? How is Valve any different?
I had a nook before I had an iPad. I use Safari on my iPad to buy books from Barnes & Noble which I then read on their iPad app. When I used Spotify I signed up via Safari so I wouldn’t have to pay an extra 30%. Is that wrong too? How is Valve any different?
Buying something from Safari has absolutely nothing to do with buying something from Apple's store, using Apple resources to make the money, etc. I don't really get your point here. It's not free for Apple to run an App Store the scale that it is. While yes its not free for Apple to create Safari, its already included as a free app with iOS and that is factored in with the price of their products. It's not an everyday drain for Apple like hosting someone's app(s), spanning them across multiple servers around the world, providing a market place for them to sell their app on, protecting the seller, etc.
rogifan_new said: I guess Apple needs to remove Safari then since you can purchase all kinds of things on Safari where Apple doesn’t get a cut.
The distinction is whether or not the browser appears within the app or not. The difference with a remote desktop app (that can obviously launch a browser) is that the focus of the app itself is so broad. Steam Link, on the other hand, is entirely focused on gaming applications. That's the only reason to get it.
Apple blocked game streaming apps before. OnLive was a game cloud streaming app, which they rejected but they allowed the OnLive desktop streaming app, which streamed a cloud-based Windows desktop.
It might just be the same rule that prevents music and video companies streaming content without paying Apple. If they allow games to stream without paying then the music and video streaming companies would likely try to avoid paying too.
It would be nice to have these apps. Sony (who bought OnLive) made Playstation Now for the PC ( https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstationnow/ ) that lets people stream Playstation games to Windows from the cloud. Having that on the AppleTV would make it a better option for gaming. It would be possible to get a Mac mini, run Windows on it and use the app that way but the Apple TV is cheaper.
If Apple's data centers were free to setup and run then lowering the App Store fees would be easier but the infrastructure costs billions and the cost shouldn't be covered solely by non-streaming app developers, everybody has to put in some amount and the way they have it setup now is that the people who make the most revenue from iOS users, pay the most, which makes sense.
Although Steam Link is a local network link and Apple could make an exception for that type of streaming app, it could easily stream games from a cloud service like Geforce Now.
Unacceptable: "Creating an interface for displaying third party apps, extensions, or plug-ins similar to the App Store or as a general-interest collection."
The Steam app does this and it's in the App Store. There's grey areas and inconsistencies in every set of rules. I'd like to see them loosen up the restrictions with game streaming apps. I don't think it would harm their iOS gaming model because they are different types of game. Maybe it could become an issue in future. Take the game Fortnite, it's on iOS and PC:
It would be feasible to stream the PC or console version instead of buying the iOS version. There aren't many examples of this type of game just now that are simultaneously on mobile and PC/console but there could be in future. I doubt Microsoft would allow Playstation Now on the XBox One. I still think there will be enough of a separation between the apps that it won't matter and I don't think mobile networks will be robust enough for a long time that streaming a UI will offer as good an experience as a native app.
Apple can't reverse their decision in a few years time though. Ultimately it's for Apple and Valve to work out a solution between them. Game streaming companies have been able to do it through the browser but maybe the controller inputs are hard to get working that way. Possibly Valve can make an app that controls a basic game with the controller and the app has an HTML input and users would get the URL from the PC to load the store and streamed games into the HTML view. This way the app would have no store at all during review, just an empty web view.
I wonder if that's how they tried to do it, putting it through review with an inactive store link and then activated it after the app was live, which might be how the review team missed it the first time, Valve's storefront is loaded in a web view, even in the Steam app, see the URL:
I had a nook before I had an iPad. I use Safari on my iPad to buy books from Barnes & Noble which I then read on their iPad app. When I used Spotify I signed up via Safari so I wouldn’t have to pay an extra 30%. Is that wrong too? How is Valve any different?
Buying something from Safari has absolutely nothing to do with buying something from Apple's store, using Apple resources to make the money, etc. I don't really get your point here. It's not free for Apple to run an App Store the scale that it is. While yes its not free for Apple to create Safari, its already included as a free app with iOS and that is factored in with the price of their products. It's not an everyday drain for Apple like hosting someone's app(s), spanning them across multiple servers around the world, providing a market place for them to sell their app on, protecting the seller, etc.
I don’t follow. Developers pay a fee to be able to develop apps for iOS. Also my point is there are things you can purchase in Safari instead of in-app and when you do Apple doesn’t get a cut. If you want to spend $10/mo vs $14/mo for Spotify you just sign up via Safari. Barnes & Noble and Amazon don’t even let you buy books (or other digital content) in their apps so Apple doesn’t get a cut. Is that wrong? This is essentially circumventing in-app purchase so Apple doesn’t get a cut of the transaction.
rogifan_new said: I don’t follow. Developers pay a fee to be able to develop apps for iOS. Also my point is there are things you can purchase in Safari instead of in-app and when you do Apple doesn’t get a cut. If you want to spend $10/mo vs $14/mo for Spotify you just sign up via Safari. Barnes & Noble and Amazon don’t even let you buy books (or other digital content) in their apps so Apple doesn’t get a cut. Is that wrong? This is essentially circumventing in-app purchase so Apple doesn’t get a cut of the transaction.
If the browser you use to purchase digital items is outside the app itself (and thus outside the App Store), then it's not a violation. Apple isn't the sole operator of the internet, so they have no legal basis to take a cut. They are the sole operator of the App Store.
Is that accurate? The description for the app does not specify new purchasing as being an option, only remote installation and downloads of games you own.
Is that accurate? The description for the app does not specify new purchasing as being an option, only remote installation and downloads of games you own.
Yep, it allows purchasing. Which means that Apple's rules have created a situation where a company can have one app to buy a game, another app to play the game, but if you create an app to buy and play the game then you're rejected. Great user experience there.
It's time for these rules to be revisited, they aren't working properly.
crowley said: Yep, it allows purchasing. Which means that Apple's rules have created a situation where a company can have one app to buy a game, another app to play the game, but if you create an app to buy [i]and[/i] play the game then you're rejected. Great user experience there.
Yeah, but you're ignoring the fact that Steam Mobile was submitted years ago when Valve wasn't attempting to have something like Steam Link available on iOS. There was no consumption of the games being purchased within iOS via Valve itself. It's possible that Steam Mobile may have to be modified as well now if Steam Link is ultimately approved, OR it's also possible that the "in-app purchases" Schiller is talking about with Steam Link are not actually the main games.
crowley said: Yep, it allows purchasing. Which means that Apple's rules have created a situation where a company can have one app to buy a game, another app to play the game, but if you create an app to buy [i]and[/i] play the game then you're rejected. Great user experience there.
Yeah, but you're ignoring the fact that Steam Mobile was submitted years ago when Valve wasn't attempting to have something like Steam Link available on iOS. There was no consumption of the games being purchased within iOS via Valve itself. It's possible that Steam Mobile may have to be modified as well now if Steam Link is ultimately approved, OR it's also possible that the "in-app purchases" Schiller is talking about with Steam Link are not actually the main games.
I'm not ignoring it at all, but the situation has become a nonsensical one, where ifs and buts are leading to Apple customers missing out on functionality because of App Store rules. Apple's business considerations are impacting on their users, and it sucks.
All this is doing is making Apple look like complete idiots. I don't know if you're aware how many people were excited to use this app. I've been in the market to update my iPad and i've been considering the newly released iPad with Apple Pen support along with several of the smaller iPad Pro models. After I read about Apple's idiotic move last night, I have now moved to looking at android tablets. It's not only me either. Read pretty much any technology site (besides Apple Insider) and everybody agrees this was a boneheaded move. It's the same thing Apple did with their speakers! Look at how well those are selling.
Is that accurate? The description for the app does not specify new purchasing as being an option, only remote installation and downloads of games you own.
Yep, it allows purchasing. Which means that Apple's rules have created a situation where a company can have one app to buy a game, another app to play the game, but if you create an app to buy and play the game then you're rejected. Great user experience there.
It's time for these rules to be revisited, they aren't working properly.
Seems these days many AI posters only care about Apple making the most profit ever, user experience be dammed.
I did not read the whole article, but rather scanned it. I based what I said on the last few paragraphs of the article:
Ultimately, Apple should not look at Valve as a competing storefront attempting to steal customers, as the developer is making the right noises and attempting to do the right thing. Instead, Apple should recognize that it wouldn't be earning revenue from Steam even if Valve followed the rules to the letter, and strongly consider allowing the app through in its current state anyway, with the promise of continuing to work on restricting transactions.
Doing so would be beneficial to iPhone and iPad users who game. It would be pro-consumer. It would make Apple appear in a more favorable light to the PC and Mac gaming community.
It will also allow me to play "Rocket League" on an iPad in the kitchen, and that's a result I'd be happy with.
My point was that if Apple bends the rules for Steam, “in its current state, with the promise of continuing to work”, then they have to do it for everybody. That would set a precedent and you can rest assured that lawsuits would follow.
Thank you,
Dave
But the precedent was already set in allowing VLC, RPlay, Chrome Remote Desktop etc. etc. It seems the "rules" were only applied to Valve and not the others?
Thanks to that android link in the article I clicked it and realised Steam Link can be installed on two of my Philips TV (android based). Installed and can't wait to get home to try it out, no additional hardware needed
Comments
https://itunes.apple.com/app/steam-mobile/id495369748
Apple blocked game streaming apps before. OnLive was a game cloud streaming app, which they rejected but they allowed the OnLive desktop streaming app, which streamed a cloud-based Windows desktop.
It might just be the same rule that prevents music and video companies streaming content without paying Apple. If they allow games to stream without paying then the music and video streaming companies would likely try to avoid paying too.
It would be nice to have these apps. Sony (who bought OnLive) made Playstation Now for the PC ( https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstationnow/ ) that lets people stream Playstation games to Windows from the cloud. Having that on the AppleTV would make it a better option for gaming. It would be possible to get a Mac mini, run Windows on it and use the app that way but the Apple TV is cheaper.
If Apple's data centers were free to setup and run then lowering the App Store fees would be easier but the infrastructure costs billions and the cost shouldn't be covered solely by non-streaming app developers, everybody has to put in some amount and the way they have it setup now is that the people who make the most revenue from iOS users, pay the most, which makes sense.
Although Steam Link is a local network link and Apple could make an exception for that type of streaming app, it could easily stream games from a cloud service like Geforce Now.
Another rule in the guidelines is the following:
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#unacceptable
Unacceptable: "Creating an interface for displaying third party apps, extensions, or plug-ins similar to the App Store or as a general-interest collection."
The Steam app does this and it's in the App Store. There's grey areas and inconsistencies in every set of rules. I'd like to see them loosen up the restrictions with game streaming apps. I don't think it would harm their iOS gaming model because they are different types of game. Maybe it could become an issue in future. Take the game Fortnite, it's on iOS and PC:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17207888/fortnite-ios-revenue-15-million-beating-candy-crush-saga
It would be feasible to stream the PC or console version instead of buying the iOS version. There aren't many examples of this type of game just now that are simultaneously on mobile and PC/console but there could be in future. I doubt Microsoft would allow Playstation Now on the XBox One. I still think there will be enough of a separation between the apps that it won't matter and I don't think mobile networks will be robust enough for a long time that streaming a UI will offer as good an experience as a native app.
Apple can't reverse their decision in a few years time though. Ultimately it's for Apple and Valve to work out a solution between them. Game streaming companies have been able to do it through the browser but maybe the controller inputs are hard to get working that way. Possibly Valve can make an app that controls a basic game with the controller and the app has an HTML input and users would get the URL from the PC to load the store and streamed games into the HTML view. This way the app would have no store at all during review, just an empty web view.
I wonder if that's how they tried to do it, putting it through review with an inactive store link and then activated it after the app was live, which might be how the review team missed it the first time, Valve's storefront is loaded in a web view, even in the Steam app, see the URL:
Is that accurate? The description for the app does not specify new purchasing as being an option, only remote installation and downloads of games you own.
It's time for these rules to be revisited, they aren't working properly.