Apple explains why Microsoft xCloud won't be coming to the iPhone

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple has now specified why Microsoft's xCloud won't be coming to iOS, by pointing out that streaming game services are explicitly prohibited according to App Store policies.




On August 5, Microsoft ended the iOS xCloud test flight program, announcing that the service would not be coming to the iPhone and iPad. Instead, the service will launch as an Android exclusive.

However, this is hardly surprising news. AppleInsider reported on the limitation of such services in March of this year.

Still, Apple felt compelled to point out why services like xCloud and Google Stadia won't be making it to the App Store.

"The App Store was created to be a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps, and a great business opportunity for all developers," an Apple spokesperson told Business Insider. "Before they go on our store, all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers."

App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud. This means cloud-based gaming services from Google Stadia, xCloud, and Nvidia GeForce cannot be hosted on the iOS App Store.

Apple holds itself to the same standard as other developers, as Apple Arcade titles are not streamed -- users must download the games from within the Arcade tab in the App Store. Competing gaming services are welcome on Apple's platform, provided they fit within the rules.

"Our customers enjoy great apps and games from millions of developers, and gaming services can absolutely launch on the App Store as long as they follow the same set of guidelines applicable to all developers including submitting games individually for review and appearing in charts and search."

One such competitor on the App Store is GameClub, which works on the same model that Apple Arcade does. For a paltry $5 a month, users get access to over 100 ad-free premium games, including several App Store classics like Super Crate Box.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?

    Anyways, where there's a will there's a way. How did MS do the test flight? Thought the app had to be operating with the public.
    tmay
  • Reply 2 of 47
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Beats said:
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?


    The Hulu app isn’t streamed. The Hulu content is. 

    I’m with Apple here, but I’m not sure how this would work. We can’t have the game devs being charged once by Apple and then charged again by Microsoft. They’ll have to split the one charge between them. 
    edited August 2020 digital_guywatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 47
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Does Sony get a pass because the games are being played on a device that is owned by the user? The PS Remote Play is not perfect, but definitely serviceable.
    edited August 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 47
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Beats said:
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?


    The Hulu app isn’t streamed. The Hulu content is. 

    I’m with Apple here, but I’m not sure how this would work. We can’t have the game devs being charged once by Apple and then charged again by Microsoft. They’ll have to split the one charge between them. 

    Oh Microsoft wanted the entire App to be streamed? WTF. Yeah, that's sketchy as heck.

    I still wonder how they had test flght working. They may have had a full app running on iPhones/iPads, then decided to pull it and think they'd get special treatment. If this is the case then Microsoft are just playing chicken with Apple to see who will move first. (Spoiler: Microsoft will).
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 47
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    razorpit said:
    Does Sony get a pass because the games are being played on a device that is owned by the user? The PS Remote Play is not perfect, but definitely serviceable.
    According to original writer, yes. Remote Play works because it’s playing through another device on the same network. 
    InspiredCoderazorpitwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 47
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,307member
    razorpit said:
    Does Sony get a pass because the games are being played on a device that is owned by the user? The PS Remote Play is not perfect, but definitely serviceable.

    I think with Playstation you are streaming from a device and not the cloud. I believe it's same with the Steam service on IOS. Someone here may know better?

    App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud. This means cloud-based gaming services from Google Stadia, xCloud, and Nvidia GeForce cannot be hosted on the iOS App Store.

    Apple holds itself to the same standard as other developers, as Apple Arcade titles are not streamed -- users must download the games from within the Arcade tab in the App Store. Competing gaming services are welcome on Apple's platform, provided they fit within the rules.

    entropysrazorpitwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 47
    This is frustrating because it feels very arbitrary. Apple likes to say everyone needs to follow the same rules, but is it really that bad to make an exception when a large number of users want it to happen.  Making unpopular decisions based on strictly following rules that Apple themselves wrote isn't a great way to win hearts and minds.

    It is often mentioned that Apple wants individual games to be listed in the store separately, but there are exceptions in the store.  For example the Jackbox Party Pack's are a collection of games in a single app. This is a good thing most of the time. I've hoped for some legal emulators by Nintendo or Sega. These should certainly be self contained apps.

    I hope that Microsoft will at least release the streaming app for home Xbox consoles. 
    edited August 2020 elijahgindieshackmuthuk_vanalingamdigital_guy
  • Reply 8 of 47
    Beats said:
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?

    Anyways, where there's a will there's a way. How did MS do the test flight? Thought the app had to be operating with the public.
    Sigh.

    1. Microsoft never thought they would get special treatment. They can't "come along eventually" because the only alternative is making full ports of console games to iPhones and iPads. Let's just say they aren't doing this on WINDOWS - let alone Android - so please just give it up.

    2. I have told you this before. iPhones are knockoffs of Samsung phones now and have been since 2014.

    3. There is no will or way. Apple either supports streaming solutions like this or they don't.

    4. Microsoft only tested with a single game. That was how they avoided breaking App Store rules.

    5. What about video like Apple TV+? And iTunes? Well that is your sole good question.
    elijahgindieshackBeats
  • Reply 9 of 47

    "Before they go on our store, all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers."
    ...
    App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud.

    I don't know what it is about streaming games from the cloud that puts customers at risk, but if restricting this protects customers, then I would say that that is a good thing.

    I wonder though, is this risk insurmountable? I would say that given a future with ubiquitous 5G, it seems the more stuff that could be streamed from the cloud safely, the better. I am not an avid gamer, but if streaming games or other concepts relying on similar technology grow in popularity, my FOMO self would want to have these available. It would be nice if Apple could solve the risk problem (and conceivably get a little more business by doing so).
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 47
    Rayz2016 said:
    Beats said:
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?


    The Hulu app isn’t streamed. The Hulu content is. 

    I’m with Apple here, but I’m not sure how this would work. We can’t have the game devs being charged once by Apple and then charged again by Microsoft. They’ll have to split the one charge between them. 
    Good answer on the difference between streaming an app and streaming content through an app. However, it is still no dice. Microsoft would say that you are streaming a video game through the app just like you are streaming a movie through Netflix. Also, it isn't a payment issue at all. Microsoft has no problem paying 30% for Office 365 subscriptions, for example. The problem is that Apple requires all apps to be locally installed and run. 

    Why? Because it is a hardware company that shows off their great hardware. Moving to PWAs and cloud-based streaming apps ... benefits cloud companies like Microsoft and Google as well as products like Android and ChromeOS as a platform, because you can use very cheap hardware to serve as UIs for the services that live in the cloud. That is why the launch configuration for Stadia was a $70 Chromecast and a Wi-Fi controller. And why you can play it on any device with a Chrome browser and you can use your existing USB gamepad. Apple wants to use services to make more money off their hardware. Things like Stadia and xCloud are designed to replace their hardware and that doesn't fit their business model. And yes, this explains why Apple executives have been running various FUD campaigns like: "you need our products FOR SECURITY AND PRIVACY", "with Apple we sell you products but WITH GOOGLE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT", and "kids who use Chromebooks in public school instead of iPads WILL FAIL IN LIFE."

    Ironically Samsung is caught in the middle. They also need to showcase the importance of hardware so that people will buy their devices that cost 2-3 times as much as perfectly serviceable ones from Motorola, Nokia, TCL, Google etc. But they also need to partner with Microsoft and Google - who are at odds with that mission - in order to obtain the software and services that they can't develop on their own to make their devices viable alternatives to Apple devices. Earlier today I read an article that discussed how Microsoft worked with Samsung to make their Tab S devices capable alternatives to iPads for professionals by making sure that anything you can do with Office on an iPad Pro, you can do on a Galaxy Tab S (yes, Samsung sells their version of the Magic Keyboard, and theirs preceded the Apple version by several years). Thanks to that, Samsung tablets are the only ones worth buying for any reason other than streaming, reading and gaming (for which a $150 Amazon Fire HD 10 is all that is needed once you sideload the Google Play apps onto it). Google gives Samsung no real help on tablets because quite honestly they would rather you buy a Chromebook, but Google did put in a lot of work into getting the software right for Samsung's foldables. The problem is that Google's preference is for such devices to ultimately cost many hundress less, and will contribute to that effort by launching their own much cheaper foldable next year. 

    Ultimately, Google and Microsoft are software companies. Microsoft is a traditional desktop and server computing software company that is increasingly moving to a cloud services model like Google and Amazon where Google has always been a cloud services model. This means that increasingly both of them are only going to be interested in getting people to their cloud services and they could care less what devices you use to get there. Maybe Microsoft less so because they still have a very vested interest in selling Microsoft Windows licenses and XBox hardware. But they know that in the future that side of their business is going to be of diminishing importance whereas the bulk of their future revenue is going to be xCloud, Office 365 and selling Azure services. That is why thinking that Microsoft wants to be isolated from the 2 billion iOS devices, you aren't thinking clearly. (Now macOS is another story ... they can do without that 7% market share, and having to support their xCloud app on both Intel and ARM for macOS would just be another bother.) And no, they won't give in to Apple's terms - and neither will Google or Nvidia - because even if it is possible it doesn't fit their future ambitions.

    Nvidia too? Aren't they a hardware company? Well yes, but Nvidia wants to get more of their hardware into cloud data centers. Right now they are trying to convince that industry to offload some of the data center workloads onto GPUs ... which Nvidia makes. Also, Nvidia wants to get into making CPUs for data centers too ... hence their desire to purchase ARM. So whether it is cloud hardware like Nvidia or cloud software like Microsoft and Google, these companies have too much riding on their own business models to worry about helping Apple with theirs.
    Beatsdigital_guy
  • Reply 11 of 47
    razorpit said:
    Does Sony get a pass because the games are being played on a device that is owned by the user? The PS Remote Play is not perfect, but definitely serviceable.
    Yes and that is why Apple (eventually and reluctantly) allowed Steam Link too.
    Beats
  • Reply 12 of 47
    Beats said:
    Oh Microsoft wanted the entire App to be streamed? WTF. Yeah, that's sketchy as heck.

    I still wonder how they had test flght working. They may have had a full app running on iPhones/iPads, then decided to pull it and think they'd get special treatment. If this is the case then Microsoft are just playing chicken with Apple to see who will move first. (Spoiler: Microsoft will).
    Once again, it isn't sketchy at all. There have been companies working on streaming games for years. Most of them were small who went out of business. Sony investigated it for years too but decided that they didn't have the resources or skills in cloud computing to pull it off. That leaves Nvidia, Google and Microsoft. Each one is playing to their own strengths. For instance Nvidia has a lot of expertise in virtualization so their solution is based on that, and they partnered with Amazon to handle the cloud stuff.

    Once again, quit it with the special treatment and playing chicken. This is a video game streaming service, and one where Microsoft already has 2 large competitors. Soon they will have 3 big competitors as Amazon will launch their game streaming service in 2021. Inevitably, the legacy console gaming companies Sony and Nintendo will have to figure out a way to get a product out. (Remember ... Nintendo was adamant about never, ever releasing mobile versions of their video games because the tiny screens were a bad experience ... then the Wii U happened. Now several Nintendo titles are on mobile, and their new "console" is actually an Nvidia Shield K1 tablet with a 6.2" screen and a dock.)

    Microsoft isn't going to abandon video game streaming in order to accommodate Apple's hardware-based strategy. Especially since they know that - unlike Google and Nvidia - the success of xCloud is going to come at least partially at the expense of their own XBox hardware. And no, Google, Nvidia and Amazon - who don't have consoles or even Apple TVs with Apple Arcade really - to compete with cloud streaming to begin with aren't going to agree to Apple's terms either. 

    And not just Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Video game companies that used to have consoles but don't any longer like Sega? Video game companies that never had consoles like EA and Ubisoft? (Google hired former Ubisoft execs, and are getting a number of Ubisoft games as a result). Video game companies who have embraced a cloud-centric gaming model from the beginning like Epic and Fortnite? (Fortnite mocked Stadia but is very much available on GeForce Now and will be on xCloud at some point.) And Steam? They have been working towards streaming their games from the cloud for years. 

    So no, Microsoft isn't going to blink and neither is everyone else with a vested interest in selling you games without forcing you to buy a $500 console or $5000 gaming rig first.
    mazda 3sBeats
  • Reply 13 of 47
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Beats said:
    Microsoft thought they would get special treatment. They'll come along eventually. Android users hate paying for things and most knockoff devices have terrible quality screens and crap performance(Yes AI smart asses, I KNOW this is cloud computing, not the point).

    Admittedly I missed this line before posting the above:
    "App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud."

    What about video like Hulu?


    The Hulu app isn’t streamed. The Hulu content is. 

    I’m with Apple here, but I’m not sure how this would work. We can’t have the game devs being charged once by Apple and then charged again by Microsoft. They’ll have to split the one charge between them. 
    Good answer on the difference between streaming an app and streaming content through an app. However, it is still no dice. Microsoft would say that you are streaming a video game through the app just like you are streaming a movie through Netflix. Also, it isn't a payment issue at all. Microsoft has no problem paying 30% for Office 365 subscriptions, for example. The problem is that Apple requires all apps to be locally installed and run. 

    Why? Because it is a hardware company that shows off their great hardware. Moving to PWAs and cloud-based streaming apps ... benefits cloud companies like Microsoft and Google as well as products like Android and ChromeOS as a platform, because you can use very cheap hardware to serve as UIs for the services that live in the cloud. That is why the launch configuration for Stadia was a $70 Chromecast and a Wi-Fi controller. And why you can play it on any device with a Chrome browser and you can use your existing USB gamepad. Apple wants to use services to make more money off their hardware. Things like Stadia and xCloud are designed to replace their hardware and that doesn't fit their business model. And yes, this explains why Apple executives have been running various FUD campaigns like: "you need our products FOR SECURITY AND PRIVACY", "with Apple we sell you products but WITH GOOGLE YOU ARE THE PRODUCT", and "kids who use Chromebooks in public school instead of iPads WILL FAIL IN LIFE."

    Ironically Samsung is caught in the middle. They also need to showcase the importance of hardware so that people will buy their devices that cost 2-3 times as much as perfectly serviceable ones from Motorola, Nokia, TCL, Google etc. But they also need to partner with Microsoft and Google - who are at odds with that mission - in order to obtain the software and services that they can't develop on their own to make their devices viable alternatives to Apple devices. Earlier today I read an article that discussed how Microsoft worked with Samsung to make their Tab S devices capable alternatives to iPads for professionals by making sure that anything you can do with Office on an iPad Pro, you can do on a Galaxy Tab S (yes, Samsung sells their version of the Magic Keyboard, and theirs preceded the Apple version by several years). Thanks to that, Samsung tablets are the only ones worth buying for any reason other than streaming, reading and gaming (for which a $150 Amazon Fire HD 10 is all that is needed once you sideload the Google Play apps onto it). Google gives Samsung no real help on tablets because quite honestly they would rather you buy a Chromebook, but Google did put in a lot of work into getting the software right for Samsung's foldables. The problem is that Google's preference is for such devices to ultimately cost many hundress less, and will contribute to that effort by launching their own much cheaper foldable next year. 

    Ultimately, Google and Microsoft are software companies. Microsoft is a traditional desktop and server computing software company that is increasingly moving to a cloud services model like Google and Amazon where Google has always been a cloud services model. This means that increasingly both of them are only going to be interested in getting people to their cloud services and they could care less what devices you use to get there. Maybe Microsoft less so because they still have a very vested interest in selling Microsoft Windows licenses and XBox hardware. But they know that in the future that side of their business is going to be of diminishing importance whereas the bulk of their future revenue is going to be xCloud, Office 365 and selling Azure services. That is why thinking that Microsoft wants to be isolated from the 2 billion iOS devices, you aren't thinking clearly. (Now macOS is another story ... they can do without that 7% market share, and having to support their xCloud app on both Intel and ARM for macOS would just be another bother.) And no, they won't give in to Apple's terms - and neither will Google or Nvidia - because even if it is possible it doesn't fit their future ambitions.

    Nvidia too? Aren't they a hardware company? Well yes, but Nvidia wants to get more of their hardware into cloud data centers. Right now they are trying to convince that industry to offload some of the data center workloads onto GPUs ... which Nvidia makes. Also, Nvidia wants to get into making CPUs for data centers too ... hence their desire to purchase ARM. So whether it is cloud hardware like Nvidia or cloud software like Microsoft and Google, these companies have too much riding on their own business models to worry about helping Apple with theirs.
    Just to let you know: after you insisted that Apple would never design its own chips, after they’d been designing them for years, I only read the first line of you posts for sh*ts and giggles. 
    ericthehalfbeebageljoeyStrangeDayswatto_cobraBeats
  • Reply 14 of 47
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    This is frustrating because it feels very arbitrary. Apple likes to say everyone needs to follow the same rules, but is it really that bad to make an exception when a large number of users want it to happen.  Making unpopular decisions based on strictly following rules that Apple themselves wrote isn't a great way to win hearts and minds.

    It is often mentioned that Apple wants individual games to be listed in the store separately, but there are exceptions in the store.  For example the Jackbox Party Pack's are a collection of games in a single app. This is a good thing most of the time. I've hoped for some legal emulators by Nintendo or Sega. These should certainly be self contained apps.

    I hope that Microsoft will at least release the streaming app for home Xbox consoles. 
    Well, first, it’s not arbitrary. The rule is there to keep malware in the store down to a minimum. 

    Secondly, you’ve misunderstood the problem. Game collections aren’t the issue because they’re submitted for verification as a bundle. What MS wants to do is install an app that will stream other applications into an iDevice. These streamed applications have not been verified by Apple. 


    You may offer a single subscription that is shared across your own apps and services, but these subscriptions may not extend to third-party apps or services. Games offered in a game subscription must be owned or exclusively licensed by the developer (e.g. not part of a game publishing platform). Each game must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers.
    Now, you probably think, so what?

    So here’s a timely reminder of why Apple does this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/05/now-fixed-exploit-used-microsoft-office-macros-to-hack-macos

    Here we have an app (Microsoft Office) compromising iOS because it can programs that haven’t been checked. 

    It’s the  same reason why Apple won’t allow apps to streamed then run. 
    edited August 2020 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 47
    ctt_zhctt_zh Posts: 29member
    Rayz2016 said:

    This is frustrating because it feels very arbitrary. Apple likes to say everyone needs to follow the same rules, but is it really that bad to make an exception when a large number of users want it to happen.  Making unpopular decisions based on strictly following rules that Apple themselves wrote isn't a great way to win hearts and minds.

    It is often mentioned that Apple wants individual games to be listed in the store separately, but there are exceptions in the store.  For example the Jackbox Party Pack's are a collection of games in a single app. This is a good thing most of the time. I've hoped for some legal emulators by Nintendo or Sega. These should certainly be self contained apps.

    I hope that Microsoft will at least release the streaming app for home Xbox consoles. 
    Well, first, it’s not arbitrary. The rule is there to keep malware in the store down to a minimum. 

    Secondly, you’ve misunderstood the problem. Game collections aren’t the issue because they’re submitted for verification as a bundle. What MS wants to do is install an app that will stream other applications into an iDevice. These streamed applications have not been verified by Apple. 


    You may offer a single subscription that is shared across your own apps and services, but these subscriptions may not extend to third-party apps or services. Games offered in a game subscription must be owned or exclusively licensed by the developer (e.g. not part of a game publishing platform). Each game must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers.
    Now, you probably think, so what?

    So here’s a timely reminder of why Apple does this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/05/now-fixed-exploit-used-microsoft-office-macros-to-hack-macos

    Here we have an app (Microsoft Office) compromising iOS because it can programs that haven’t been checked. 

    It’s the  same reason why Apple won’t allow apps to streamed then run. 
    Do you have proof that MS wants to install an app that will stream other applications into an iDevice? My understanding is the XBox Game Pass App is installed on device and selecting a game within it will simply launch a VM in an Azure Cloud Server which will serve the game stream and receive input commands like move, fire etc.. I could well be wrong but I've seen no evidence of extra applications / games being downloaded and stored on device. 
  • Reply 16 of 47
    Rayz2016 said:

    This is frustrating because it feels very arbitrary. Apple likes to say everyone needs to follow the same rules, but is it really that bad to make an exception when a large number of users want it to happen.  Making unpopular decisions based on strictly following rules that Apple themselves wrote isn't a great way to win hearts and minds.

    It is often mentioned that Apple wants individual games to be listed in the store separately, but there are exceptions in the store.  For example the Jackbox Party Pack's are a collection of games in a single app. This is a good thing most of the time. I've hoped for some legal emulators by Nintendo or Sega. These should certainly be self contained apps.

    I hope that Microsoft will at least release the streaming app for home Xbox consoles. 
    Well, first, it’s not arbitrary. The rule is there to keep malware in the store down to a minimum. 

    Secondly, you’ve misunderstood the problem. Game collections aren’t the issue because they’re submitted for verification as a bundle. What MS wants to do is install an app that will stream other applications into an iDevice. These streamed applications have not been verified by Apple. 


    You may offer a single subscription that is shared across your own apps and services, but these subscriptions may not extend to third-party apps or services. Games offered in a game subscription must be owned or exclusively licensed by the developer (e.g. not part of a game publishing platform). Each game must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers.
    Now, you probably think, so what?

    So here’s a timely reminder of why Apple does this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/05/now-fixed-exploit-used-microsoft-office-macros-to-hack-macos

    Here we have an app (Microsoft Office) compromising iOS because it can programs that haven’t been checked. 

    It’s the  same reason why Apple won’t allow apps to streamed then run. 

    I don’t feel you got my point.

    The rules themselves are arbitrary, I was not referring to the enforcement of the rules.  Game collections are currently against the rules despite all games contained in the bundle.  They are not allowed as you imply.  The gameplay is streamed in this case. No games/apps loaded on device. For all intents and purposes this is the same as streaming from a Xbox or PlayStation. They can put the store in a separate app like they already do for game pass, so no purchases needed.

    The only difference is where the device you are streaming from physically sits. 

    Apple can currently make the rules, so that is what it is. However when these situations occur, Apple could choose to change the rules and do what would be popular among their users. If users are inconvenienced enough they eventually switch platforms and evangelize their new choice. Decisions like this also give users on other platforms something to cite as examples for why the grass is greener on their side. This already happens significantly. I’m not sure if Apple thinks the market share loss is manageable or if they live in a walled garden where everyone they know is an iPhone user and don’t see what Android users say about the iPhone. Sure it is skewed to their perspective, but most of it is true.
    edited August 2020
  • Reply 17 of 47
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Beats said:
    Oh Microsoft wanted the entire App to be streamed? WTF. Yeah, that's sketchy as heck.

    I still wonder how they had test flght working. They may have had a full app running on iPhones/iPads, then decided to pull it and think they'd get special treatment. If this is the case then Microsoft are just playing chicken with Apple to see who will move first. (Spoiler: Microsoft will).
    Once again, it isn't sketchy at all. There have been companies working on streaming games for years. Most of them were small who went out of business. Sony investigated it for years too but decided that they didn't have the resources or skills in cloud computing to pull it off. That leaves Nvidia, Google and Microsoft. Each one is playing to their own strengths. For instance Nvidia has a lot of expertise in virtualization so their solution is based on that, and they partnered with Amazon to handle the cloud stuff.

    Once again, quit it with the special treatment and playing chicken. This is a video game streaming service, and one where Microsoft already has 2 large competitors. Soon they will have 3 big competitors as Amazon will launch their game streaming service in 2021. Inevitably, the legacy console gaming companies Sony and Nintendo will have to figure out a way to get a product out. (Remember ... Nintendo was adamant about never, ever releasing mobile versions of their video games because the tiny screens were a bad experience ... then the Wii U happened. Now several Nintendo titles are on mobile, and their new "console" is actually an Nvidia Shield K1 tablet with a 6.2" screen and a dock.)

    Microsoft isn't going to abandon video game streaming in order to accommodate Apple's hardware-based strategy. Especially since they know that - unlike Google and Nvidia - the success of xCloud is going to come at least partially at the expense of their own XBox hardware. And no, Google, Nvidia and Amazon - who don't have consoles or even Apple TVs with Apple Arcade really - to compete with cloud streaming to begin with aren't going to agree to Apple's terms either. 

    And not just Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Video game companies that used to have consoles but don't any longer like Sega? Video game companies that never had consoles like EA and Ubisoft? (Google hired former Ubisoft execs, and are getting a number of Ubisoft games as a result). Video game companies who have embraced a cloud-centric gaming model from the beginning like Epic and Fortnite? (Fortnite mocked Stadia but is very much available on GeForce Now and will be on xCloud at some point.) And Steam? They have been working towards streaming their games from the cloud for years. 

    So no, Microsoft isn't going to blink and neither is everyone else with a vested interest in selling you games without forcing you to buy a $500 console or $5000 gaming rig first.
    I'm pretty sure that no one from Apple read your cry's of despair, but I'm guessing that you feel all the better for posting them. 

    BeatsroundaboutnowRayz2016rotateleftbyteStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 47
    I'm not complaining but I wonder why Apple worries about things that no other companies worry about.  For other companies, it's all about providing users with what they want while Apple keeps trying to protect users while even the users don't even concern themselves about these things.  Other companies are just looking to make more revenue without such trivial concerns.  I think it's OK the way Apple operates but I think Apple is putting itself to a disadvantage.  This streaming stuff doesn't concern me at all.  I use a Playstation 4 and will likely get a Playstation 5 to play my games on.  I'm not much of a gaming person, so whatever Apple decides is fine with me.  I guess this is another one of the reasons why Android OS is on 85% of all mobile devices.  Apple isn't likely to gain any ground on the Android OS market share by protecting iOS users.  As an Apple shareholder, Apple can keep doing what it's doing as long as the share price keeps rising.  For that, I can easily put up with Apple's weird decisions.  I'm fairly certain Apple knows what it's doing even if I don't understand why Apple does what it does.
    razorpitwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 47
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,650member

    "Before they go on our store, all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers."
    ...
    App Store guidelines state that an app can't rely on streaming from the cloud.

    I don't know what it is about streaming games from the cloud that puts customers at risk, but if restricting this protects customers, then I would say that that is a good thing.

    I wonder though, is this risk insurmountable? I would say that given a future with ubiquitous 5G, it seems the more stuff that could be streamed from the cloud safely, the better. I am not an avid gamer, but if streaming games or other concepts relying on similar technology grow in popularity, my FOMO self would want to have these available. It would be nice if Apple could solve the risk problem (and conceivably get a little more business by doing so).
    It's nothing to do with risk, that's just doublespeak for "we don't get a 30% cut from streamed games so no chance".
  • Reply 20 of 47
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,650member

    Rayz2016 said:

    This is frustrating because it feels very arbitrary. Apple likes to say everyone needs to follow the same rules, but is it really that bad to make an exception when a large number of users want it to happen.  Making unpopular decisions based on strictly following rules that Apple themselves wrote isn't a great way to win hearts and minds.

    It is often mentioned that Apple wants individual games to be listed in the store separately, but there are exceptions in the store.  For example the Jackbox Party Pack's are a collection of games in a single app. This is a good thing most of the time. I've hoped for some legal emulators by Nintendo or Sega. These should certainly be self contained apps.

    I hope that Microsoft will at least release the streaming app for home Xbox consoles. 
    Well, first, it’s not arbitrary. The rule is there to keep malware in the store down to a minimum. 

    Secondly, you’ve misunderstood the problem. Game collections aren’t the issue because they’re submitted for verification as a bundle. What MS wants to do is install an app that will stream other applications into an iDevice. These streamed applications have not been verified by Apple. 


    You may offer a single subscription that is shared across your own apps and services, but these subscriptions may not extend to third-party apps or services. Games offered in a game subscription must be owned or exclusively licensed by the developer (e.g. not part of a game publishing platform). Each game must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers.
    Now, you probably think, so what?

    So here’s a timely reminder of why Apple does this:

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/05/now-fixed-exploit-used-microsoft-office-macros-to-hack-macos

    Here we have an app (Microsoft Office) compromising iOS because it can programs that haven’t been checked. 

    It’s the  same reason why Apple won’t allow apps to streamed then run. 
    How is one at risk of malware when it's purely a video streamed from another device, just as any Youtube video is?

    Again, nothing to do with verification of steamed apps. I can use VNC on my phone to run anything on my Mac, or a Linux or Windows box, entirely unverified by Apple. Valve  streams games just the same with Steam Link, except Apple forced Valve to remove all reference to purchasing games through Steam Link before they'd approve it. If that's not enough evidence of Apple's motives and the real reason Apple doesn't want streamed games, I don't know what is. As I said in the other thread about this, this is exactly what is attracting the ire of governments, and in typical stubborn Apple fashion, they keep on refusing to change.
    edited August 2020 muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.