First remotely playing games, next it will be apps. What’s to stop companies from creating remote (I.e. “steamed”) app stores disconnecting Apple’s control and user privacy?
This is a very slippery slope. I can understand Apple taking this approach.
Like others are saying, if you don’t like it move to Android.
Office already exists as a web-based version. So do many, many other apps.
From a technical and latency perspective, an app makes more sense for gameplay. This can be circumvented with Xcloud or Stadia with some kind of controller API for Safari in iOS, but I'm not expecting it.
The web-based version is dependent on having an internet connection for it to work, whereas an app will work with or without one. If Microsoft provided an Internet-only Office365 option, no one would use it.
On larger screen devices, like the iPad Pro, the Office app absolutely demands an internet connection for authentication of paid status and access to all features.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I feel exactly the opposite! 😀 Kudos to AI for writing an objective article on the issue that goes beyond feeding “red meat” to the fanboys. Actually learned a lot about this that I never knew (but not much of a gamer.)
Completely agree, it's an excellent piece. Very nicely answers some lingering questions / perceptions from previous threads.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I'm glad you agree that Apple is trying to preserve its revenue stream. That's the whole point of the article. If developers choose to throw in with streaming services and get paid by them, instead of Apple paying them, so be it. Maybe Apple will be forced to change things as a result of that competition, which is the whole point of capitalism, is it not?
In regards to other comments discussing "monopoly." A monopoly isn't by itself illegal, nor is it required for anti-trust arguments. All anti-trust needs is illegal and unnecessary blocking or interference with other businesses. That's it.
How, exactly, is Apple interfering in other businesses? MS, et al, aren't entitled to run Apple's business.
You imply that Apple has no corporate sovereignty, and in fact, if Apple is aware of how little gaming will affect their business, streaming or otherwise, shouldn't they have the ability to test their business model in the market against competing business models?
Unless of course, you have some sort of Minority Report operation that can predetermine success of a particular business model.
I like Apple's curated approach, and I like that Apple doesn't rush into whatever the fad of the market is. Do you really think that streaming games, affected by latency issues, will be a wonderful experience from the get go?
Perhaps you can provide a detailed, first person experience with specific hardware and services, to all of us.
I really have no idea what you're asking for, here.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Are you currently using a game streaming service on other hardware, ie, an Android device, and what is your experience with latency?
AI's overall experience with the Xcloud beta is embedded as a video in this piece. Latency with a good internet connection isn't a major crisis. I wouldn't do anything like paid e-sports on it or anything, but the Halo experience is effectively the same between the Xbox One on this desk, and it streamed to my iPad Pro from Xcloud.
If you know your overall latency to the closest data center is bad, measurable by speedtest.net or similar, it isn't as good, obviously.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I'm glad you agree that Apple is trying to preserve its revenue stream. That's the whole point of the article. If developers choose to throw in with streaming services and get paid by them, instead of Apple paying them, so be it. Maybe Apple will be forced to change things as a result of that competition, which is the whole point of capitalism, is it not?
In regards to other comments discussing "monopoly." A monopoly isn't by itself illegal, nor is it required for anti-trust arguments. All anti-trust needs is illegal and unnecessary blocking or interference with other businesses. That's it.
How, exactly, is Apple interfering in other businesses? MS, et al, aren't entitled to run Apple's business.
You imply that Apple has no corporate sovereignty, and in fact, if Apple is aware of how little gaming will affect their business, streaming or otherwise, shouldn't they have the ability to test their business model in the market against competing business models?
Unless of course, you have some sort of Minority Report operation that can predetermine success of a particular business model.
I like Apple's curated approach, and I like that Apple doesn't rush into whatever the fad of the market is. Do you really think that streaming games, affected by latency issues, will be a wonderful experience from the get go?
Perhaps you can provide a detailed, first person experience with specific hardware and services, to all of us.
I really have no idea what you're asking for, here.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Are you currently using a game streaming service on other hardware, ie, an Android device, and what is your experience with latency?
AI's overall experience with the Xcloud beta is embedded in the piece. Latency with a good internet connection isn't a major crisis. I would do anything like paid e-sports on it or anything, but the Halo experience is effectively the same between the Xbox One on this desk, and it streamed to my iPad Pro from Xcloud.
I can see running the iPhone off of a network would not have much latency, but running off of a cellular network might be problematic, and I would expect that would be a common mode of operation.
Apple's major priorities include keeping margin high, increasing market share, maintaining control of their ecosystem. I suspect that this initial news and the 'outrage' that follows will bring both money-loving companies to the negotiating table to make things work, where Apple can maintain their priorities and Micro$oft can make more money. I use both companies' products (Office 365, PCs, Xbox) and own shares in each company - I don't like Microsoft, but there is no getting around having to use their products.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I'm glad you agree that Apple is trying to preserve its revenue stream. That's the whole point of the article. If developers choose to throw in with streaming services and get paid by them, instead of Apple paying them, so be it. Maybe Apple will be forced to change things as a result of that competition, which is the whole point of capitalism, is it not?
In regards to other comments discussing "monopoly." A monopoly isn't by itself illegal, nor is it required for anti-trust arguments. All anti-trust needs is illegal and unnecessary blocking or interference with other businesses. That's it.
How, exactly, is Apple interfering in other businesses? MS, et al, aren't entitled to run Apple's business.
You imply that Apple has no corporate sovereignty, and in fact, if Apple is aware of how little gaming will affect their business, streaming or otherwise, shouldn't they have the ability to test their business model in the market against competing business models?
Unless of course, you have some sort of Minority Report operation that can predetermine success of a particular business model.
I like Apple's curated approach, and I like that Apple doesn't rush into whatever the fad of the market is. Do you really think that streaming games, affected by latency issues, will be a wonderful experience from the get go?
Perhaps you can provide a detailed, first person experience with specific hardware and services, to all of us.
I really have no idea what you're asking for, here.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Are you currently using a game streaming service on other hardware, ie, an Android device, and what is your experience with latency?
AI's overall experience with the Xcloud beta is embedded in the piece. Latency with a good internet connection isn't a major crisis. I would do anything like paid e-sports on it or anything, but the Halo experience is effectively the same between the Xbox One on this desk, and it streamed to my iPad Pro from Xcloud.
I can see running the iPhone off of a network would not have much latency, but running off of a cellular network might be problematic, and I would expect that would be a common mode of operation.
With a good 4G signal, say, cruising down the I-95 corridor, it's pretty good. Routing improvements in 5G should make it better, regardless if sub-6 or mmWave, as the network rolls out.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I'm glad you agree that Apple is trying to preserve its revenue stream. That's the whole point of the article. If developers choose to throw in with streaming services and get paid by them, instead of Apple paying them, so be it. Maybe Apple will be forced to change things as a result of that competition, which is the whole point of capitalism, is it not?
In regards to other comments discussing "monopoly." A monopoly isn't by itself illegal, nor is it required for anti-trust arguments. All anti-trust needs is illegal and unnecessary blocking or interference with other businesses. That's it.
How, exactly, is Apple interfering in other businesses? MS, et al, aren't entitled to run Apple's business.
You imply that Apple has no corporate sovereignty, and in fact, if Apple is aware of how little gaming will affect their business, streaming or otherwise, shouldn't they have the ability to test their business model in the market against competing business models?
Unless of course, you have some sort of Minority Report operation that can predetermine success of a particular business model.
I like Apple's curated approach, and I like that Apple doesn't rush into whatever the fad of the market is. Do you really think that streaming games, affected by latency issues, will be a wonderful experience from the get go?
Perhaps you can provide a detailed, first person experience with specific hardware and services, to all of us.
I really have no idea what you're asking for, here.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Are you currently using a game streaming service on other hardware, ie, an Android device, and what is your experience with latency?
AI's overall experience with the Xcloud beta is embedded in the piece. Latency with a good internet connection isn't a major crisis. I would do anything like paid e-sports on it or anything, but the Halo experience is effectively the same between the Xbox One on this desk, and it streamed to my iPad Pro from Xcloud.
I can see running the iPhone off of a network would not have much latency, but running off of a cellular network might be problematic, and I would expect that would be a common mode of operation.
With a good 4G signal, say, cruising down the I-95 corridor, it's pretty good. Routing improvements in 5G should make it better, regardless if sub-6 or mmWave, as the network rolls out.
I think this situation would be the perfect test of the AppStore rules committee Apple plans to create. The rules as they stand present a situation that is impossible for the XCloud service to meet. I think the committee should be for situations the rules are impossible to comply with. The goal should be to find a way to create rules that can be complied with for any app. The rules can say something you don't like (i.e. 15%/30% revenue cut), but they are at least possible to fulfill. I don't think they should be forced to create rules to allow apps that extend operating system features (for example parental controls apps). Operating system features should be completely up to Apple as the platform owner to allow. Any other app that can be created with current operating system features should have a path forward. If the rules don't provide one, then the committee should be forced to create that path.
This could be turned in to a PR win instead of loss for Apple and I think this is exactly the situation the rules committee should address.
This situation seems untenable to me. Apple is going to have to concede on this one. Consumers are going to demand it.
A subset of consumers will demand it, and I'm guessing that Apple has plenty of data on the subject, and given that, it would be difficult to determine if Apple was actually anti-consumer for just following a chosen business mode..
Meh. Who cares? If you’re wasting your life playing games, you have your priorities wrong.
It’s crap like this that makes the rest of your posting even harder to respect. You have no right to tell anyone what their priorities should be. No doubt you have your own choices of entertainment time in your life. If you have zero entertainment, we’ll then, that’s probably part of why your attitudes are problematic.
Meh. Who cares? If you’re wasting your life playing games, you have your priorities wrong.
It’s crap like this that makes the rest of your posting even harder to respect. You have no right to tell anyone what their priorities should be. No doubt you have your own choices of entertainment time in your life. If you have zero entertainment, we’ll then, that’s probably part of why your attitudes are problematic.
Actually, and I disagree with SpamSandwich on just about everything, he does have every right to voice his opinion. and you as well have the same right to counter him, a right which you just exercised.
Of course, the Moderators have the right to remove posts that are considered by them to be out of bounds.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
Because mobile gaming and AAA PC/console gaming are different entities with different developers targeting different consumers. Anyone who thinks that people are going to stop playing Candy Crush or Clash of Clans and start playing Call of Duty or Kingdom Hearts is totally unaware of the differences in gameplay, technology and target markets involved. Besides, I know how Apple fans love to portray themselves as the persecuted victim but please drop it. Apple's valuation and profits are probably bigger than Microsoft and Google combined. Also, it isn't just Microsoft and Google. There were several small video game streaming services trying to get off the ground. Had they been allowed on iOS they might have gotten traction. Instead, this allows the much bigger companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Nvidia - all of whom make their own hardware and don't need the iOS platform (they want it but don't need it to survive and grow) - to get entrenched. When Amazon launches their video game streaming service next year, for instance, they can just give their Fire 7 tablets or Fire TV sticks - which often sell for as little as $35 - away to whoever asks for one in return for signing up for the service (which will almost certainly be bundled with Amazon Prime anyway).
I have ZERO interest in subscribing to software and that includes streaming gaming services. Video compression irritates me watching shows already. I’m not going to spend money subscribing to a compressed game video with questionable latency and whatnot, and all the rest of the nonsense of not owning a perpetual license (and video streaming is exactly a perfect illustration of the nonsense, such as when content you’re watching suddenly is no longer available).
HOWEVER, I agree with the article. Apple is wrong here. Theirs is a ridiculous excuse for blocking this particular type of gaming system.
Apple has historically SUCKED at supporting gaming on their desktop platform. It really makes me wonder what is wrong with their corporate culture that this is so constantly the case. iOS gaming gets talked up, because they found a huge profit margin there, but whenever it comes to desktop gaming, it’s like they can’t be bothered to give a damn.
That’s what these gaming streaming services are: desktop gaming through a dumb terminal. Since Apple don’t have a strong presence in that market (more self-inflicted injuries), there’s little support and even actual misdirected obstruction.
Apple very often give off the impression of not really knowing what the hell they're doing. It feels like more of the same lack of vision and leadership that’s been at issue since 2013’s release of the uglification and bugification of iOS (slowly penetrating to Mac OS), and this has yet to turn around.
If your defense of Apple is “but their stock price” or “but they make money hand over fist”, don’t bother responding because you’re missing the point.
First remotely playing games, next it will be apps. What’s to stop companies from creating remote (I.e. “steamed”) app stores disconnecting Apple’s control and user privacy?
This is a very slippery slope. I can understand Apple taking this approach.
Like others are saying, if you don’t like it move to Android.
I don't want people to move to Android because the platform doesn't cater to them. A platform is great in part because of the diversity of its users.
Apple is not a monopoly and has the right to set their policies. Proof is, xCloud will work with Android.
So, the choice is clear. If you wish to stream games on your mobile device, you go for Android. Period.
Companies have the right not to go in certain areas. Should it be a mistake, it will be their bad. But please, stop this “anti-consumer” nonsense!
Apple doesn't have to be a monopoly to be tried or convicted of anti-competitive practices. This action and emails received by the House Judiciary Committee, some of which were leaked last week, not only clearly showed that Apple acted anti-competitively but a lot of that mentality was coming from Jobs-era thinking.
Playing games is completely different than watching a one-way streamed video. How is that not obvious to you?
If this is allowed, developers in all categories will try to create "streamed" versions of their apps to circumvent Apple. Will be become a shit show
Developers in all categories are trying to create "streamed" versions of their apps already. Google and Microsoft would actually prefer that you do it and have released an SDK for the purposes of converting your traditional app to a streamed app.
Google, Amazon and Microsoft don't make any real money on hardware. So if a billion iPhones sell - hardware money for Apple - and all rely primarily on apps submitted to the app store that are downloaded and physically installed on the device - 30%/15% services revenue for Apple - they don't see a cent of that except for whatever apps of theirs that also are bought or sell subscriptions on the app store who have to compete with a million other apps that do the same thing. But if Google, Amazon and Microsoft can convince developers to shift from relying on apps that are downloaded to iOS devices to apps that live in the cloud, they can make money that way by offering to host those apps on AWS, Azure and Google Cloud Platform.
For the developers, this may actually be better. For one, it makes being multi-platform a lot easier. Instead of having to code the app in Swift or Objective C for iOS, Java or Kotlin for Android and C# for Windows 10/10S/10X, you write the main app once for your cloud deployment (i.e. using the Javascript-based MEAN stack that all the cloud companies support) and then merely have to tweak each version of the Vue.js PWA front end to fit each platform's requirements.
For the record, this post claims that Apple supports PWAs and has from the beginning.
Meh. Who cares? If you’re wasting your life playing games, you have your priorities wrong.
I'm like you, a complete non gamer but I understand the appeal (addiction even) of them and the importance they have on people's lives. For me, personally, it is like a waste of my time.
I wouldn't say their priorities are wrong though.
I love fishing and many might say that is a waste of valuable time. Sometimes days on end of my life without a catch.
But what is a waste of time and what isn't is a very personal thing. I think if you're happy doing something, it's worth it.
Fishing, camping and hunting are absolutely better than video gaming. This is an objective fact rather than a subjective opinion.
This situation seems untenable to me. Apple is going to have to concede on this one. Consumers are going to demand it.
A subset of consumers will demand it, and I'm guessing that Apple has plenty of data on the subject, and given that, it would be difficult to determine if Apple was actually anti-consumer for just following a chosen business mode..
Apple had plenty of data, and gave us Apple Arcade. I don't think we should trust Apple too much when is related to gaming.
First remotely playing games, next it will be apps. What’s to stop companies from creating remote (I.e. “steamed”) app stores disconnecting Apple’s control and user privacy?
This is a very slippery slope. I can understand Apple taking this approach.
Like others are saying, if you don’t like it move to Android.
In reality, music, TV and movies were streaming first. And base on that, I didn't see Apple losing control or users privacy. Why would it be different with gaming?
Comments
On larger screen devices, like the iPad Pro, the Office app absolutely demands an internet connection for authentication of paid status and access to all features.
If you know your overall latency to the closest data center is bad, measurable by speedtest.net or similar, it isn't as good, obviously.
This could be turned in to a PR win instead of loss for Apple and I think this is exactly the situation the rules committee should address.
A subset of consumers will demand it, and I'm guessing that Apple has plenty of data on the subject, and given that, it would be difficult to determine if Apple was actually anti-consumer for just following a chosen business mode..
Of course, the Moderators have the right to remove posts that are considered by them to be out of bounds.
HOWEVER, I agree with the article. Apple is wrong here. Theirs is a ridiculous excuse for blocking this particular type of gaming system.
Apple has historically SUCKED at supporting gaming on their desktop platform. It really makes me wonder what is wrong with their corporate culture that this is so constantly the case. iOS gaming gets talked up, because they found a huge profit margin there, but whenever it comes to desktop gaming, it’s like they can’t be bothered to give a damn.
That’s what these gaming streaming services are: desktop gaming through a dumb terminal. Since Apple don’t have a strong presence in that market (more self-inflicted injuries), there’s little support and even actual misdirected obstruction.
Apple very often give off the impression of not really knowing what the hell they're doing. It feels like more of the same lack of vision and leadership that’s been at issue since 2013’s release of the uglification and bugification of iOS (slowly penetrating to Mac OS), and this has yet to turn around.
If your defense of Apple is “but their stock price” or “but they make money hand over fist”, don’t bother responding because you’re missing the point.
https://medium.com/pwabuilder/microsoft-and-google-team-up-to-make-pwas-better-in-the-play-store-b59710e487
Google, Amazon and Microsoft don't make any real money on hardware. So if a billion iPhones sell - hardware money for Apple - and all rely primarily on apps submitted to the app store that are downloaded and physically installed on the device - 30%/15% services revenue for Apple - they don't see a cent of that except for whatever apps of theirs that also are bought or sell subscriptions on the app store who have to compete with a million other apps that do the same thing. But if Google, Amazon and Microsoft can convince developers to shift from relying on apps that are downloaded to iOS devices to apps that live in the cloud, they can make money that way by offering to host those apps on AWS, Azure and Google Cloud Platform.
For the developers, this may actually be better. For one, it makes being multi-platform a lot easier. Instead of having to code the app in Swift or Objective C for iOS, Java or Kotlin for Android and C# for Windows 10/10S/10X, you write the main app once for your cloud deployment (i.e. using the Javascript-based MEAN stack that all the cloud companies support) and then merely have to tweak each version of the Vue.js PWA front end to fit each platform's requirements.
For the record, this post claims that Apple supports PWAs and has from the beginning.
https://love2dev.com/pwa/ios/
So whatever point you are trying to make here is wrong.