Editorial: The new Services - How will Apple Arcade's exclusivity, privacy affect Android ...

Posted:
in iPhone edited May 4
Apple has built a very strong position in mobile gaming in its iOS App Store. With Apple Arcade, it is working to create a new pipeline of fun, original, attractive, exclusive games, without ads and where privacy is protected. How will this impact Android and Google Play?


Arcade bridges Apple's platforms

Bridging Apple's platforms, leaping others

As the previous article in this series outlined, Apple's App Store changed the game in mobile software and established iOS as a commercially important platform over the last decade. Apple Arcade expects to double down on the App Store's success in gaming with an investment worth hundreds of millions of dollars, setting a new stage for the next decade.

However, it has become common to claim that Apple's iOS is losing its importance as a platform because Huawei sells smartphones for $400, or because there are Androids with four cameras, or because people in China are using WeChat as a platform, or various other stories that celebrate commodity and cheap hardware.

None of those media narratives explain Apple's leading position in the corporate enterprise, or as the maker of the vast majority of all premium phones globally-- even in China where WeChat is popular-- or of the iOS App Store leading mobile app development in a world where there are so many "good enough" Androids being sold each quarter.

Apple does have a platform problem to address, but it's not iOS. It's the Mac-- which has an installed base of around 100M, compared to nearly one billion iOS devices-- and Apple TV, which has a hardware potential that original interactive content, novel apps, and games are clearly not fully exploiting.

Apple Arcade promises to not only underscore the commercial relevance of iOS as the premier platform for mobile gaming, but also intends to become the tide that lifts the boats attached to Apple's other platforms: tvOS and macOS.

At the same time, it appears that Arcade will further parch the conspicuous drought that affects Android gaming. Despite having a vast sea of users, Google Play simply can't fish out as much economic activity as the App Store.

Arcade's exclusive games won't run on Huawei phones no matter how many cameras they have, and won't run on commodity Androids on top of WeChat because rich games require more work to develop than a middleware social network can host. Further, cheap mobile hardware isn't very good at playing involving, cinematic, or technically advanced games.

Apple's new Services are all about creating new applications for Apple's premium hardware, and it threatens to become a strong mobile platform differentiator. Within days of its announcement, Scott Adam Gordon of Android Authority was already asking "Is it bad news for Android?"

His piece noted "Oceanhorn is a popular mobile game available on Google Play, but Apple has confirmed the upcoming sequel, Oceanhorn 2: Knights of the Lost Realm will be an Arcade launch title. Android fans could be saying goodbye to future Oceanhorn titles if Apple Arcade proves far more lucrative than the Play Store ever did."





The sequel to Oceanhorn is exclusive to Apple Arcade

Google Play's fake games and real malware are the YouTube of apps

Gordon pointed out that "Google Play is also rife with video game clones and re-skins, which Apple Arcade would avoid completely," a reference to the knockoffs and copyright infringement titles on Android, including Google Play titles loaded with ads pretending to be games that are actually exclusive to iOS. Joe Hindy outlined the issue for Android Authority in the article "Google Play still has a clone problem in 2019 with no end in sight".

Gordon's initial article contemplating Apple Arcade's impact on Android also noted the "weird selling point" of "touting a commitment to user privacy with Arcade games," stating that "Google does a comparatively excellent job of protecting Android users given the volume of apps that appear in the Play Store, but privacy and security issues do crop up from time to time."

He specifically linked that to a story describing malicious titles in the Google Play store that appeared to be benign, laid dormant, then later pretended to be a trusted app requesting permissions to enable their latent malware to exploit the device. Google removed the titles but they popped back up again from different developers using the same code.

He could also have noted a recent incident specifically related to gaming, where more than a dozen malicious titles in Google Play appeared to crash at launch while loading a malicious payload designed to give outside parties access to the phones' network activity.

Why did Google Play accept and begin distributing broken games that didn't even work? Because just like its YouTube videos exploiting children and radicalizing extremists, Google can just wait until the complaints get loud enough and then be hailed as a hero for eventually taking them down. And right until that happens, Google can potentially turn a profit from monetizing "the engagement" of bad content.


"Scores of people inside YouTube and Google, its owner, raised concerns about the mass of false, incendiary and toxic content that the world's largest video site surfaced and spread... Each time they got the same basic response: Don't rock the boat."


Google Play's most recent batch of malware posing as fake games were downloaded by over half a million Play users, causing TechCrunch to describe it as "another embarrassing security lapse by Google, which has long faced criticism for its backseat approach to app and mobile security compared to Apple, which some say is far too restrictive and selective about which apps make it into its walled garden."

So there's problems on both sides, because Apple is actively blocking the exploitation of children with MDM tactics, while Google is doing "a comparatively excellent job in protecting Android users" if you just set your expectations really low and think of privacy and security as a "weird selling point."

Android's curation-free surveillance is a dangerous game

Beyond the kind of criminal malware exploitation that regularly erupts on Android and which Google is sort of half-struggling to contain in Google Play, Apple Arcade's commitment to privacy and security also involves elimination of advertising and the surveillance tracking that optimizes the monetization of ads.

There's a "both sides" argument here, too. What about people who like advertising, particularly advertising that's tailored just for them, so they don't have to see generic, irrelevant ads? Ads can make basic content available for free, and surveillance tracking dramatically increases the value of advertising.

Google's paid placement search worked fantastically well because it put ad messages right in the context of people looking for a specific thing. Advertisers were willing to pay far more for that than to simply plaster their message in ignored and mostly worthless display banners.

While Google certainly doesn't like malware, it has absolutely no interest in containing ads and the customized nature of tracking at all. The entire point of Android is to attract a platform of users Google can sell to its advertisers. But many users do not fully understand how sophisticated modern ad surveillance is, and therefore have no way to understand the risks that this unrestricted tracking exposes them to.

Modern ad tracking goes well beyond just profiling users into various demographics to show them "relevant ads." Ad networks exist to find cross-app and cross-site web browsing correlations they can market to ad buyers.

So when their user surveillance notices, for example, that a large number of users who install a specific workout app and also use a food delivery service are also statistically likely to pay for a subscription to Grindr, they can offer strategic ad placement to the vendor of that gay hookup app within every app that particular population of users will see.

This correlation discovery can be done anonymously, and may even represent a mysterious behavioral link that's not fully understood. Advertisers trust ad networks because they see results for their money. That's why Facebook could suddenly thrust itself in front of Google's paid placement search ads as being more attractive because it could deduce more about audiences via the social graph than Google could interpolate simply by tracking queries and website visits.

The specific example above of an attempt at "relevant advertising" is potentially valuable to an advertiser seeking to target their ad budget at gay men willing to pay for a cruising tool, but it may make faulty assumptions about the user of a device. That could end up being embarrassing at best and plausibly even cause a person to lose their job in any number of states or countries where there is no legal protection from discrimination launched in the mere suspicion of a person's private life details.

That targeting could also destroy a relationship. And if you're traveling in some countries, it could potentially threaten you with detainment and even persecution at the border. All because your private behaviors were interpreted by an algorithm to imply a potential interest that others might notice. Targeted advertising can appear to reveal private things about you that may not even be accurate, yet with such confidence that it makes you look like you're hiding something.

Surveillance advertising is like a credit report conjured up by inherently biased algorithms with a wide margin of error, which you have no real control over, and it goes far beyond the dossier that Google will share with you if you request it. It's a mechanism that can even reveal things about you before you know them.

Seven years ago, a story by Charles Duhigg for the New York Times described how Target raised eyebrows by sending women ads for newborn merchandise before their families even realized that they were pregnant, all simply based on robotically observing correlations in what other things they were buying.




When sophisticated ad surveillance jumps to the conclusion that you may be pregnant, or looking for a different job, moving, leaving an abusive relationship, seeking help with a addiction, considering medical treatment, supporting a particular political cause, or any number of other personal matters, anyone else who sees the carefully targeted ads that are being custom picked for you has good reason to think that Google and its ad network partners may be revealing something about you that you're hiding.

Of course, Google and other ad networks have absolutely no malicious interest in outing a person's sexuality, or incorrectly implying a person is gay, or promiscuous, or radically nationalist, or in inadvertently exposing anyone to discrimination, or in revealing any other personal details or status for which they aren't getting paid to make public.

But Google also has a vested interest in controlling Android's malware, and yet it's repeatedly done an absolutely incompetent job of keeping even overtly dysfunctional, obviously fake garbage and malicious apps off Google Play. It waits until the damage becomes untenable to ignore. Given that Google didn't care about its own Pixel C buyers or even vulnerable children on YouTube, you can be pretty confident it doesn't care about your privacy in the slightest.

Users shouldn't have to trust that Google won't make an algorithmic mistake about them that could expose them to potentially serious life repercussions. And they honestly can't, because Google hasn't earned any trust in handling users privacy or security.

Why is Apple emphasizing a commitment to privacy?

Android enthusiasts routinely view concerns about privacy as a "weird selling point," but Apple specifically made a "commitment to privacy" a major bullet point feature of its new Arcade, alongside another shot taking direct aim Google: "no ads."


Two of the six primary features of Apple Arcade took direct aim at Google: "no ads" and "privacy"


The Wall Street Journal publicly railed against Apple for failing to keep up with the massive user data collection efforts of Google and Facebook to surveil users and calculate the most effective exploitation possible with targeted advertising, because this could also be used to deliver "a smarter iPhone."

"While I applaud and appreciate your assurance of privacy," Joana Stern advised Apple's Tim Cook in a 2016 opinion, "my worry is that you simply can't afford to maintain that mentality when the competition has such a great advantage."

Is Apple also naively leaving money on the table by working to avoid exposing its users and the environment to lead or mercury poisoning, just because such issues may be of little concern to companies in China operating on a razor-thin profit margin?

Do we simply live in a post-privacy world where anything that ad surveillance can algorithmically assume about us is fair game to use against us, simply because that's the cost of "free"? Apple is betting that users will prefer to pay for a private, premium experience, rather than "get what they pay for" without directly paying anything upfront. The more users know about the real costs involved, the better Apple's deal appears.

Privacy by design

Apple Arcade provides a clear assurance of privacy in that no secret, automated system will be watching the games you play and trying to find correlations between the games you like, your behaviors while playing, the other apps you use, and how you communicate, so that it can sell possibly-accurate insights into who you are or what other things you might like to advertisers looking to target a narrowly specific audience with their messaging.

And nobody has to trust that Apple won't be making mistakes, or inadvertently leaking its algorithmic assumptions about you, because the plumbing to watch what you do and try to monetize the exploitation of your privacy simply doesn't exist in Apple Arcade. It's like a bathroom without any cameras pointed at you.





Beyond a Steel Sky lets you play inside a fantasy world spied upon by AI, but doesn't actually force you to live within such a dystopian reality


As more details leak out about the extent to which Android is effectively allowing Google, Facebook, and even purely malicious developers to rifle through your contacts, see your app installations, and track together every website you load and every search you make, the issue of privacy and data security is gaining greater attention.

Apple Arcade's privacy by design highlights what other app platforms are refusing to do: respect your assumption of privacy. And that's worse news for Android than just missing out on new exclusive game titles.

The question remains: no matter how much more appealing and secure and private Apple can make its ecosystems, is there any realistic hope of iPhone sales ever growing in the future? The next article in this series will examine the topic.
watto_cobra
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,315member
    Keep it coming Mr. Dilger. Your articles and editorials are well written and filled with good information. I’m starting to see some of your work show up on news sites not dedicated to Apple alone.
    tmaykiltedgreencurrentinterestAppleExposedStrangeDaysleavingthebiggRocwurstwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 820member
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
  • Reply 3 of 38
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 434member
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
    It's because you assume that anyone needs to know what INDIVIDUALS are doing, versus the aggregate use. Apple clearly knows from it's servers how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game, etc., but they don't collect that Joe Blow read that article.
    williamlondontycho_macuserStrangeDayswatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 4 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 820member
    Notsofast said:
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
    It's because you assume that anyone needs to know what INDIVIDUALS are doing, versus the aggregate use. Apple clearly knows from it's servers how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game, etc., but they don't collect that Joe Blow read that article.
    I am sad to tell you that you are wrong. Here's the actual words from Apple during their introduction to Apple News+ "And that means we don't know what you read."  (scroll to 20:46). But people like you just assume how it works without actually knowing. You said "Apple clearly knows how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game" but that's contradicted by what Apple says. I remember when they went into further detail on how this works but I won't go into that here.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 38
    arlorarlor Posts: 509member
    Notsofast said:
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
    It's because you assume that anyone needs to know what INDIVIDUALS are doing, versus the aggregate use. Apple clearly knows from it's servers how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game, etc., but they don't collect that Joe Blow read that article.
    I am sad to tell you that you are wrong. Here's the actual words from Apple during their introduction to Apple News+ "And that means we don't know what you read."  (scroll to 20:46). But people like you just assume how it works without actually knowing. You said "Apple clearly knows how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game" but that's contradicted by what Apple says. I remember when they went into further detail on how this works but I won't go into that here.
    I don't think any of us know exactly how Apple manages things, but I'm confident that Notsofast has to be closer to correct about what Apple knows. Apple's servers have to deliver the video/story/magazine/etc. to your phone. The server has to know what to send you in order to send it. The only alternative I can think of would be to send you absolutely everything you might want, so that it's all on your phone when you pick it and no central server has to deliver it, but that's clearly impossible. So Apple has to have aggregate figures on how many times each thing is watched. What they don't do is keep (or market) a log of individual users' choices. In other words, Apple has to have individual-level information to deliver content, but they choose not to keep it. 
    tycho_macuserwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 38
    NY1822NY1822 Posts: 601member
    Thank you Dan....any stats on how many active Apple TVs are out there?
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 820member
    NY1822 said:
    Thank you Dan....any stats on how many active Apple TVs are out there?
    And specifically which version of Apple TV. I have a very old version. I'm sure there will be a minimum version for Apple Arcade, but I don't know what that will be.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 38
    igerardigerard Posts: 12member
    NY1822 said:
    Thank you Dan....any stats on how many active Apple TVs are out there?
    And specifically which version of Apple TV. I have a very old version. I'm sure there will be a minimum version for Apple Arcade, but I don't know what that will be.
    ATV4 & 4K, I recall
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 38
    When Apple says "we don't know what you read", they are almost certainly stating it literally - they do not know what I, personally, read because they are not tracking personally-identifiable data. In other words, they know someone clicked on an LA Times article (as an example), but they do not know that my AppleID was the one who did that even though I am logged in with said AppleID. If Apple literally did not track that an article was accessed, they could not pay the publisher for it. And Apple has said payments will be made based on the number of accesses. But all Apple is collecting is that the article was accessed and nothing else. They are not collecting data that would allow them to begin to form a "portfolio" of me based on the publications and articles I access.
    muthuk_vanalingamtycho_macuserStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 820member
    When Apple says "we don't know what you read", they are almost certainly stating it literally - they do not know what I, personally, read because they are not tracking personally-identifiable data. In other words, they know someone clicked on an LA Times article (as an example), but they do not know that my AppleID was the one who did that even though I am logged in with said AppleID. If Apple literally did not track that an article was accessed, they could not pay the publisher for it. And Apple has said payments will be made based on the number of accesses. But all Apple is collecting is that the article was accessed and nothing else. They are not collecting data that would allow them to begin to form a "portfolio" of me based on the publications and articles I access.
    Apple did not say "we do not track", they said "we do not know". You are trying to interpret those words as "we do not track" but they actually explained why it's "we do not know". Listen to their explanation and then argue with that. Did you watch the video I cited? It's a few seconds earlier than 20:46. It seems that you ignored their explanation of how it works. You also made a totally unjustified statement that "Apple has said payments will be made based on the number of accesses." Is it possible for you to cite where they said that? Don't assume you know how it works - please cite your claims. Some days I feel like I am arguing against brick walls, am I the first person who ever felt that way? (Um, I stayed home today with back pain. I think that put me in a bad mood. Sorry.)
    edited May 4 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 38
    A better question: How will Google Stadia, its streaming video game service, affect Apple Arcade? When you compare the quality of games, Stadia will be the hands down winner. The only question is whether Google can crack the video quality and latency issues.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 12 of 38
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,178member
    Notsofast said:
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
    It's because you assume that anyone needs to know what INDIVIDUALS are doing, versus the aggregate use. Apple clearly knows from it's servers how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game, etc., but they don't collect that Joe Blow read that article.
    I am sad to tell you that you are wrong. Here's the actual words from Apple during their introduction to Apple News+ "And that means we don't know what you read."  (scroll to 20:46). But people like you just assume how it works without actually knowing. You said "Apple clearly knows how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game" but that's contradicted by what Apple says. I remember when they went into further detail on how this works but I won't go into that here.
    Depends if “you” is collective or individual.  I took this as the latter so they can count the volume of impressions (for payment) but not record them per user.  That kind of detail is kept on-device for ML-based personalisation.
    I seem to recall so push-back from some publishers about the lack of demographic data which is normally provided.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 38
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,386member
    A better question: How will Google Stadia, its streaming video game service, affect Apple Arcade? When you compare the quality of games, Stadia will be the hands down winner. The only question is whether Google can crack the video quality and latency issues.
    No doubt impressive technology. But Stadia was designed by engineers thinking about themselves. How well does it work mobile? Does it load offline games? How do those play on $250 androids, you know the statistical middle ASP majority? 

    If it works well on premium phones, it will be yet another reason to buy a high end iPhone. If it doesn’t, it will be limited to the, say the nicer minority of  installed base of Chromebooks and $1000 Galaxy S. That’s not a platform worth targeting with anything but ads. 
    williamlondontycho_macuserwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 38
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    A better question: How will Google Stadia, its streaming video game service, affect Apple Arcade? When you compare the quality of games, Stadia will be the hands down winner. The only question is whether Google can crack the video quality and latency issues.
    No doubt impressive technology. But Stadia was designed by engineers thinking about themselves. How well does it work mobile? Does it load offline games? How do those play on $250 androids, you know the statistical middle ASP majority? 

    If it works well on premium phones, it will be yet another reason to buy a high end iPhone. If it doesn’t, it will be limited to the, say the nicer minority of  installed base of Chromebooks and $1000 Galaxy S. That’s not a platform worth targeting with anything but ads. 
    Dan, I don't think Stadia will need premium hardware to run on. A lowly $250 handset will manage. Read up on it a bit before making assumptions. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 15 of 38
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,538unconfirmed, member
    Fu** Google, scumbag spyware knockoff-Apple company.

    But really the only thing I give a sh** about is AppleTV FINALLY getting some decent games!!!!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 38
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,698member
    iOS games have long ruled the mobile gaming world for a long time now, and iOS devices are of course the best mobile devices to play those games on. Some big titles are iOS exclusives and we are even seeing some desktop ports of large games. CIV VI is one that comes to mind. I would never have believed that I'd be able to play something like CIV VI on a mobile device, but now I can, and I'm glad that I can.

    I'm not a huge gamer, but I do play some games from time to time on my iPad Pro. The experience is great. 

    Apple Arcade will only further cement Apple's position as the premiere mobile gaming platform.

    I look forward to seeing and hearing more details about it soon. Hopefully there will be some really killer games on there. I might subscribe, it all depends. We'll see what it costs and we'll see what they have to offer when it gets released.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 38
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,768member
    gatorguy said:
    A better question: How will Google Stadia, its streaming video game service, affect Apple Arcade? When you compare the quality of games, Stadia will be the hands down winner. The only question is whether Google can crack the video quality and latency issues.
    No doubt impressive technology. But Stadia was designed by engineers thinking about themselves. How well does it work mobile? Does it load offline games? How do those play on $250 androids, you know the statistical middle ASP majority? 

    If it works well on premium phones, it will be yet another reason to buy a high end iPhone. If it doesn’t, it will be limited to the, say the nicer minority of  installed base of Chromebooks and $1000 Galaxy S. That’s not a platform worth targeting with anything but ads. 
    Dan, I don't think Stadia will need premium hardware to run on. A lowly $250 handset will manage. Read up on it a bit before making assumptions. 
    Well, on first blush, he appears to have done slightly more reading up than you.

    Google Stadia only works with Pixel Phones, Chromecast on TV

    Chances are that Google will severely limit the devices it can run on launch. This is common sense: there are relatively few Pixel phones out there, which means there is little chance of the servers crashing due to overloading. It'll also make it much easier to trace and fix problems if they're dealing with a limited hardware set. Once things are nice and stable, they will look at other devices.

    Your statement that 'a lowly $250 handset will manage' is, unsurprisingly unsubstantiated by any links to evidence or corroborating posts. Meanwhile, Corrections did not say that they wouldn't work, he simply posed the question how well they would work, and that is indeed a valid question. How will the service look if the games look like crap for the  vast majority who run them? Because even the vast majority of the game is being run on a server, at some point the client device will have to render the screen and play the sounds. If this leads to a poor experience then Google would certainly be better off limiting the service to devices that would show it at its best. As Corrections alluded to, we may even find that it runs best on an iPhone. You'll still be buying the subscription, or the game, or having all your data harvested for advertisers, so Google won't really care that much.

    How will the service fair in areas that don't have high-end broadband services? What happens when I'm stuck in in a tunnel on the Circle Line? How do I play during a nine-hour flight? Lots of unknowns, which is to be expected at this stage.




    edited May 5 macpluspluswilliamlondontycho_macuserStrangeDaysbestkeptsecretwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 38
    WallaxWallax Posts: 3member
    One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)
    Well, when I downloaded my data they had on me, they had what songs I’d added to my phone and when I’d played what (with if I skipped it or not etc). I’m sure. Request your data & take a look. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 19 of 38
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    A better question: How will Google Stadia, its streaming video game service, affect Apple Arcade? When you compare the quality of games, Stadia will be the hands down winner. The only question is whether Google can crack the video quality and latency issues.
    No doubt impressive technology. But Stadia was designed by engineers thinking about themselves. How well does it work mobile? Does it load offline games? How do those play on $250 androids, you know the statistical middle ASP majority? 

    If it works well on premium phones, it will be yet another reason to buy a high end iPhone. If it doesn’t, it will be limited to the, say the nicer minority of  installed base of Chromebooks and $1000 Galaxy S. That’s not a platform worth targeting with anything but ads. 
    Dan, I don't think Stadia will need premium hardware to run on. A lowly $250 handset will manage. Read up on it a bit before making assumptions. 
    Well, on first blush, he appears to have done slightly more reading up than you.

    Google Stadia only works with Pixel Phones, Chromecast on TV

    Chances are that Google will severely limit the devices it can run on launch. This is common sense: there are relatively few Pixel phones out there, which means there is little chance of the servers crashing due to overloading. It'll also make it much easier to trace and fix problems if they're dealing with a limited hardware set. Once things are nice and stable, they will look at other devices.

    Your statement that 'a lowly $250 handset will manage' is, unsurprisingly unsubstantiated by any links to evidence or corroborating posts. Meanwhile, Corrections did not say that they wouldn't work, he simply posed the question how well they would work, and that is indeed a valid question. How will the service look if the games look like crap for the  vast majority who run them? Because even the vast majority of the game is being run on a server, at some point the client device will have to render the screen and play the sounds. If this leads to a poor experience then Google would certainly be better off limiting the service to devices that would show it at its best. As Corrections alluded to, we may even find that it runs best on an iPhone. You'll still be buying the subscription, or the game, or having all your data harvested for advertisers, so Google won't really care that much.

    How will the service fair in areas that don't have high-end broadband services? What happens when I'm stuck in in a tunnel on the Circle Line? How do I play during a nine-hour flight? Lots of unknowns, which is to be expected at this stage.




    My lowly $250 Pixel OG will manage, and a cheap Chromecast Ultra will put this on your big-screen. A Chrome browser (not Apple's version tho) on a normal laptop or desktop will also be compatible. As that's a pretty obscure link you are relying on here's a better and more informative one.
    https://www.techradar.com/news/google-stadia-may-be-the-first-good-use-for-5g-phones


    Dan was very clearly mistaken when he surmised that $1000 handsets with the latest processors would be required. So the limitation if any will be your internet speed/location not the hardware it's running on, at least once (if?) the initial rollout proves successful. 

    You're too quick to jump in and say "Dan is right". He's not. 
    edited May 5 avon b7singularity
  • Reply 20 of 38
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 753member
    Am I alone in thinking Apple Arcade will not have a free trail period? (You start when you subscribe)
Sign In or Register to comment.