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.
Uhm, maybe Apple determined that it isn't worth it to be in anything but the casual game segment. If Apple is wrong, then they will end up eliminating Arcade, or changing it, but MS threatening Apple is not a solution.
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?
Completely different level of interactivity means that a linear stream of media, is a false equivalent of a gaming stream.
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.
Considering Xcloud partnered with T-Mobile, I assume this isn't an issue.
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.
This sentiment is bizarre. I never "moved" to macOS, for example. I just added macOS devices to my existing Windows and Linux computers. Similarly, if I ever buy an iPad - extremely unlikely at this point for reasons that I won't get into that have nothing to do with the quality of Apple products because I am enjoying my Macs very much and also very much enjoyed iPads, iPods and Apple TVs in the past (my only issue was with iTunes but that is another story) - rest assured I will not be throwing my Chromebooks in the trash.
So you do not need to switch platforms. All you need to do is buy an Android device capable of running xCloud and/or Stadia. And that is when one of the primary benefits of the Android ecosystem can help you: serviceable Android devices can be very cheap. Can't tell the good from the bad? Allow me to state that Nokia and Motorola make quality low cost phones, and the Nokia ones in particular receive regular updates for 3 years. Tablets are a bit more challenging, but if you are not up for buying an Amazon Prime tablet and sideloading the Google apps onto it, your next best bet is probably the Samsung Galaxy A series tablets. If you are only going to use these devices for cloud gaming and whatever else is available to you on Android that is not available to you on iOS then the so-called horror show that Apple chauvinists insists exist on every other platform won't affect you.
This "if are you not with us you are against us" stuff ... it makes no sense from a consumer pespective. At all. The only one that makes sense is "I am going to find out what is best at doing the job and get it to do that job."
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.
Uhm, maybe Apple determined that it isn't worth it to be in anything but the casual game segment. If Apple is wrong, then they will end up eliminating Arcade, or changing it, but MS threatening Apple is not a solution.
I haven't seen MS threatening Apple. Can you point out where they did that in their press release?
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?
Completely different level of interactivity means that a linear stream of media, is a false equivalent of a gaming stream.
The content maybe different, but from a technical POV, music, TV/movies and games are being streamed to the device. Like I said before, considering what I have seen from TV/movies and music streaming, there is no evidence Apple would lose control or compromise users privacy.
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.
These kind of game streaming apps have been available on Android for years and haven't caused a shift from native, they tend to serve different categories of games and they tend to shut down after a while because players get a better experience from native games so it's not sustainable to run the servers to serve so few paying users. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Sony can run them at a loss though. Maybe in the long-term streaming games can compete with native but even on desktop, the experience is quite poor relative to native, assuming a fast enough computer. On mobile displays, some of the AAA game UIs are going to look extremely small and they aren't built for touch. It's practically unfeasible to do game streaming on most mobile networks because of the latency.
Looking at the highest earning mobile games, hardly any of them would be more suitable in a streamed environment:
Streaming means taking the game UI rendering it on the server, compressing it with the audio and sending it down as a video. This often blurs the output, especially if the video lowers resolution to match the network speed. For games like Candy Crush, it just wouldn't make sense to do that.
The in-app purchasing options would all be different using a different account.
On one hand I understand Apple's position, streaming allows developers to bypass Apple's content restrictions in games, like violence and adult content and probably purchasing options but I see streaming as more complementary rather than competitive with native games, even years down the line. Streaming is a really niche gaming option that comes with a lot of limitations, one being paying for the service itself and the games on top, which are often locked to the service. It took about 7 months for Stadia to reach a million users on Android and that's just people who tried it, not active users. Mobile has billions of users.
Due to the limited appeal, Apple not allowing it doesn't affect many people but it reinforces people's negative perceptions of their control over access to apps to decide for themselves. I don't think Apple would see any harm by allowing these game streaming apps on the store. They allow Microsoft's Remote Desktop app on iOS:
If Microsoft setup a Windows server that anyone could access through Remote Desktop, I assume they'd be able to connect to XCloud through that like a stream within a stream. If anything, having streaming apps in the store could even improve sales of Apple TV boxes and there's nothing stopping Apple making their own game streaming service.
Playstation Now is one of the top streaming services, has been around for years and streams Playstation games to PC and console and it says here it has 2.2m users:
That's less than 3% of gamers on one of the most popular streaming services. There's nothing to lose from allowing game streaming and nothing to lose from not allowing them. It'll be possible to do it via the browser anyway as long as the browser offers controller support. If Safari doesn't, Chrome etc on iOS should be able to.
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!
I find it funny how many people have no idea how businesses are run or how the economy works in the US, and companies are free to associate and not associate with other businesses and customers as they see fit. So many people get upset a company is not doing what they want, and want to demand a company do business in a particular way. This is why competition exist. If you do not like a company's business model or practices go to a different company who does what you like, if none exist you are free to create your own company and do it the way you think it should be done. Welcome to America land of opportunities to take advantage of an under served market there is nothing holding you back.
This is no different than someone opening a restaurant and customers demanding the restaurant make and sell Starbuck's coffee verse the plain old black coffee they offer. There is an old saying "Before you judge a someone, walk a mile in their shoes," ie stop telling companies how to run their business unless you done it yourself. I am pretty sure those criticizing Apple have never run a business and everyone at the company continue to have job. At the end of the day every company has its + and -, I would have to say Apple's +'s far out weigh the -'s they have.
On side note, went to one of our favor places to eat recently, a local tavern, and they had these great Nachos. During this whole virus thing they reduced their menu to a limit set of items, Nachos we gone, they reopen recently, most of their items were back and the Nachos were still gone, our friend ask about them and the waitress said they were not coming back, reason being the owner decide an Irish pub should not be serving Nachos. The friend got all upset and began demanding they bring them back, I said to the friend you are free to go somewhere else to get Nachos and let it go. It just amazes me, how people feel so entitle they can demand companies to do things they want.
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.
This is just wrong. First off, I use Stadia - on my Samsung phone, the browser on my MacBook and the browser on my Chromebook - and have experienced no more lag than I have on Steam or Nintendo Switch. (And less lag than on the Wii U). Go on various sites and read comments and blogs from people who have used Stadia and they will tell you the same.
Second, as a user of Android devices, the idea that the services that come to Android first are terrible until Apple comes along and makes them good ... is fiction. Even if you agree with the very debatable idea that Apple's implementations of Android ideas are better that doesn't change the fact that those features worked capably for hundreds of millions of users for years on Android, and as a result constituted a real benefit for the owners of these devices.
Feel free to defend Apple's approach. But don't make up falsehoods while doing so. All that does is weaken's Apple's case.
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.
Sure ... just like billions of people don't use Google Docs, Sheets and Slides. Seriously where do people like this come from?
Appears to me like Apple is attempting to allow parents to vet games that their children can play.
As it stands parents can allow or not allow game downloads by age group, and can determine what's on a local game system by credit card or which physical media CDs/DVDs are purchased, but a streaming game system means their kids could be playing something like Mario Kart or Thrill Kill.
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!
I find it funny how many people have no idea how businesses are run or how the economy works in the US, and companies are free to associate and not associate with other businesses and customers as they see fit. So many people get upset a company is not doing what they want, and want to demand a company do business in a particular way. This is why competition exist. If you do not like a company's business model or practices go to a different company who does what you like, if none exist you are free to create your own company and do it the way you think it should be done. Welcome to America land of opportunities to take advantage of an under served market there is nothing holding you back.
This is no different than someone opening a restaurant and customers demanding the restaurant make and sell Starbuck's coffee verse the plain old black coffee they offer. There is an old saying "Before you judge a someone, walk a mile in their shoes," ie stop telling companies how to run their business unless you done it yourself. I am pretty sure those criticizing Apple have never run a business and everyone at the company continue to have job. At the end of the day every company has its + and -, I would have to say Apple's +'s far out weigh the -'s they have.
On side note, went to one of our favor places to eat recently, a local tavern, and they had these great Nachos. During this whole virus thing they reduced their menu to a limit set of items, Nachos we gone, they reopen recently, most of their items were back and the Nachos were still gone, our friend ask about them and the waitress said they were not coming back, reason being the owner decide an Irish pub should not be serving Nachos. The friend got all upset and began demanding they bring them back, I said to the friend you are free to go somewhere else to get Nachos and let it go. It just amazes me, how people feel so entitle they can demand companies to do things they want.
It's amazing that people like you think Apple is above scrutiny or the law and that they can just abuse their power.
Appears to me like Apple is attempting to allow parents to vet games that their children can play.
As it stands parents can allow or not allow game downloads by age group, and can determine what's on a local game system by credit card or which physical media CDs/DVDs are purchased, but a streaming game system means their kids could be playing something like Mario Kart or Thrill Kill.
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.
These kind of game streaming apps have been available on Android for years and haven't caused a shift from native, they tend to serve different categories of games and they tend to shut down after a while because players get a better experience from native games so it's not sustainable to run the servers to serve so few paying users. https://www.ccn.com/fortnite-google-stadia-burn/
Due to the limited appeal, Apple not allowing it doesn't affect many people but it reinforces people's negative perceptions of their control over access to apps to decide for themselves. I don't think Apple would see any harm by allowing these game streaming apps on the store. They allow Microsoft's Remote Desktop app on iOS:
If Microsoft setup a Windows server that anyone could access through Remote Desktop, I assume they'd be able to connect to XCloud through that like a stream within a stream. Playstation Now is one of the top streaming services, has been around for years and streams Playstation games to PC and console and it says here it has 2.2m users:
That's less than 3% of gamers on one of the most popular streaming services. There's nothing to lose from allowing game streaming and nothing to lose from not allowing them. It'll be possible to do it via the browser anyway as long as the browser offers controller support. If Safari doesn't, Chrome etc on iOS should be able to.
There are "issues" with this.
0. The remote desktop model that Apple accepts is not in the interests of Microsoft, Google, Nvidia or Amazon (who will launch a game streaming service next year) which is to attract more companies and users to their cloud services. Just as it took video games to shift desktop computing from being a subculture dominated by niche industries and professions to going mainstream, companies that provide cloud software services - Microsoft, Google, Amazon - and who make hardware for the cloud data centers - Amazon - have a vested interest in getting more companies, programmers and consumers to bypass current hardware-centered solutions for cloud ones. Quite naturally companies whose profits rely on consumers continually upgrading expensive hardware such as Apple are going to have the opposite goal. If there are enough great cloud-based apps to do everything you need, there is no need to invest in an $800 iPhone or iPad based on their superiority in executing these mobile apps on the local hardware. A $200 5G-enabled Android phone - which will start to roll out in September and will be commonplace next year - or $250 Wi-Fi 6 Android tablet $250 Chromebook will be just as good. Note that Samsung is dealing with this by promoting their devices as being the best ones at accessing Google and Microsoft services by offering deep integration with the former and software exlusives with the latter and form factors like foldables/bendables (which Microsoft will offer their own next month and Google next year) to take advantage. You should already imagine in your head Stadia or xCloud running in split screen mode with the game on the bigger screen and the camera/chat/stats/health meters on the smaller one because it is definitely coming.
1. Stadia's struggles SHOULD NOT be an indictment on the potential of streaming. Let's just say that Google did a terrible job and came out with a highly questionable product. Stadia would have required cutting edge/bleeding edge innovation in technology, business modeling and management to work. Instead Google hired a couple of former executives from Ubisoft that haven't had a prominent presence in the gaming mainstream - instead of someone from Fortnite, Minecraft or even the people behind the Nintendo Switch - and Stadia initially launched with expensive controllers connected to a special edition Chromecast. Add to that their tiny library consisting almost exclusively of 5-10 year old console or Steam titles that you had to purchase a second time.
2. PlayStation Now only has 2.2 million subscribers but it is not available on mobile. It is only available on PC and on PlayStation. Also, its business model is specifically designed to complement the PlayStation. Meaning that it is only really desirable if you own a PlayStation and want to play games while you don't have access to it. Google Stadia is explicitly for people who want to play AAA games but don't want to buy a console or gaming rig. As for xCloud, they are taking a middle path. They don't want to make it essentially worthless if you don't have an XBox - like the PlayStation service - and they don't want to replace the XBox or even necessarily your Windows gaming rig either (like Stadia). Instead, it is A) a service for existing XBox subscribers which has 65 million monthly active users - funny. you didn't mention that when you were mocking PlayStation and Stadia - and as a gateway for people who currently game primarily on other platforms - including mobile - to try their games and maybe get an XBox down the line.
3. What you really should be paying attention to here is Amazon. First off, they don't have an existing video game console empire to protect like Microsoft and Sony. They are also an actual business that sells products to consumers, unlike Google, who comes out with absolutely ridiculous products like an Android Wear watch with no physical button, no apps, no Wi-Fi connectivity, whose screen was unusable in direct sunlight and could only last 12-18 hours of moderate use before the battery died, and whose only use was to send voice search commands to your phone over Bluetooth (requiring you to access the phone to view the results of the search). Or the Nexus Player: 1 GB of RAM, no Ethernet, a very hard to get to mini-USB 2.0 as the only port, non-standard CPU, 8 GB of storage ... for the low price of $99. Or their original Chromebook Pixel ... $1300 and remember it was released long before Chromebooks supported Android or Linux. Or their early Pixel phones after they stopped partnering with LG and HTC ... flagship prices for devices with old CPUs, old camera designs, tiny batteries and not enough RAM because "software optimizations were going to maximize the hardware." Like Google, Amazon's product is going to be a full court press to get people to give up their consoles and gaming rigs. But like Microsoft, Amazon's product is actually going to be a good one with an actual content library that doesn't require you to spend $60 to repurchase a game that you bought on Steam 6 years ago.
So please revisit this comment a year from now. See how many people are using xCloud and Amazon as opposed to a product designed specifically not to compete with PlayStation hardware (PSN) and a product that had no real design at all from a company whose thing isn't designing and selling products in the first place (Stadia). And. yes, by then 5G on mobile devices and home mesh Wi-Fi 6 setups will be more widely available - you can buy Nest from Google and eero from Amazon for the latter, and Microsoft is partnering with TMobile to push xCloud for the former - to address the "lag" that has never bothered anyone in my household who uses Stadia (which despite having a terrible business model still fundamentally works ... i repurchased some of the cheaper Steam games to be played on Chromebooks and Android phones when on the go and it works fine ... it suits the needs of certain people in my household who have outgrown Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Angry Birds and other mobile titles).
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.
I don't use the iOS version of Office365 so I can't say how the authentication grace period works. In apps like Adobe's creative suite, it has to ping the mothership every 30 days to make sure the license is current... that is nowhere near the same as making the case that it's identical to what Microsoft is trying to do with the game streaming.
I can easily see companies sprouting and start creating streaming app stores that essentially removes all control from Apple, and it starts with the gateway drug that is the video game. Microsoft could then be an App market for other developers creating apps to host on Microsoft's service that will stream to any device.
You may think it's the same as using a game controller to watch Netflix, I do not. It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this, but one this is for certain... I don't trust any company other than Apple, and the apps Apple curates to make sure what I do on my device is secure from nefarious 3rd-party services. If this model becomes the norm, hackers won't need to bother with Apple... they will simply hack the companies hosting 3rd-party streaming app services for a goldmine of data.
While I like the idea of "streaming" a video game, the approach is more a bandaid than something revolutionary... it basically allows substandard hardware to "pretend" to be something more. To each their own. I suppose I'm just old-school where binaries belong on the device. If this is the future of app services, then Apple users should be concerned.
I couldn't give a lesser f**k if it runs on Android. Everyone knows that Android Security is an oxymoron so it's no surprise that Microsoft is playing that card.
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.
Maybe in the long-term streaming games can compete with native but even on desktop, the experience is quite poor relative to native, assuming a fast enough computer. On mobile displays, some of the AAA game UIs are going to look extremely small and they aren't built for touch. It's practically unfeasible to do game streaming on most mobile networks because of the latency.
Marvin, you don't need a 'speedy hi-spec machine" to have a great experience with Stadia or XCloud. Stadia for its part runs great on a Chromebook, or a Pixel smartphone, or your average home PC. That's the best part of these new game streamer services, the hardware is no longer a barrier or even significant part of the equation since all the heavy lifting is done by Google, and I assume the same is true of Microsoft's service.
Latency? Potentially a sticking point but from what I've been reading this morning if you have a 100GB internet service or better (which is no longer very unusual) there's no noticeable difference for the most part between playing from a local copy or playing streamed from Google. Again I'll assume MS is the same. Play on your TV, a crappy tablet with a nice display, your old home PC, a Pixel smartphone or a recent Samsung. or some other Android phones. You no longer require a 'gaming computer" or a standalone game box for gaming. IMO Google probably over-reached with the initial roll-out. A lot of promises and such and much of it slow to become reality. But today the service is much improved even from just 90 days ago. Here's a more recent video from the IGN guys who can be brutal at times, so if they have something positive to say it's probably authentic.
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.
That's called the web. You get to it through Safari. Apple has no control over it and it's up to end users to have enough responsibility not to give up their data.
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.
Maybe in the long-term streaming games can compete with native but even on desktop, the experience is quite poor relative to native, assuming a fast enough computer. On mobile displays, some of the AAA game UIs are going to look extremely small and they aren't built for touch. It's practically unfeasible to do game streaming on most mobile networks because of the latency.
Marvin, you don't need a 'speedy hi-spec machine" to have a great experience with Stadia or XCloud. Stadia for its part runs great on a Chromebook, or a Pixel smartphone, or your average home PC. That's the best part of these new game streamer services, the hardware is no longer a barrier or even significant part of the equation since all the heavy lifting is done by Google, and I assume the same is true of Microsoft's service.
Latency? Potentially a sticking point but from what I've been reading this morning if you have a 100GB internet service or better (which is no longer very unusual) there's no noticeable difference for the most part between playing from a local copy or playing streamed from Google. Again I'll assume MS is the same. Play on your TV, a crappy tablet with a nice display, your old home PC, a Pixel smartphone or a recent Samsung. or some other Android phones. You no longer require a 'gaming computer" or a standalone game box for gaming. IMO Google probably over-reached with the initial roll-out. A lot of promises and such and much of it slow to become reality. But today the service is much improved even from just 90 days ago. Here's a more recent video from the IGN guys who can be brutal at times, so if they have something positive to say it's probably authentic.
I'm thinking that you meant 100 Mbps, which is not uncommon.
In fact, I will be getting Charter Cable into my business complex soon (they have routed the coax, but not connected us yet) with the promise of those speeds.
Why would Apple provide Microsoft's paid gamepass service with the most lucrative marketplace on the planet for free, and access to literally BILLIONS of customers?
Comparisons are made to streaming service and Netflix, but this is idiotic. Apple is allowed to have different policies for different types of apps. Streaming games is not the same as streaming movies? Can you BUY movies from the appstore? No, you can't. It's a different model. If Apple allows it, it's guaranteed that game developers will take this loophole and exploit it by having some kind of hybrid cloud approach in order to avoid the appstore fee. It's a slippery slope. And yes, obviously Microsoft is gonna publicly bitch and whine about this, as its to their benefit. Doesn't mean the whining is justified.
Apple is free to change their appstore policies to allow this if they wish, but that would be their choice. They are also justified in leaving the rules as they are. The people that care about playing gamepass with an awkward as fuck controller attached to their iPhones might be vocal, but they're an EXTREME niche of iPhone owners. They're not relevant. I'd prefer Apple ensures rules that will keep the appstore healthy. Android can do whatever the hell they want with their appstore, does not mean Apple needs to follow suit. Even with a much larger marketshare, the Google Play store is a massive failure compared to the appstore.
I agree with this article. I usually defend Apple's actions, but not this time. This is anti-consumer.
Like banning Flash?
Exactly. People forget the massive outcry over that, and at the end of the day Apple stuck to its guns and was better off for it. As well as the entire industry. But at the time they hardly got support from anyone. They were decried by blogs, developers, and consumers.
Point is Apple shouldn't automatically give in due to public outcry. This outcry is often short-sighted and ignorant of the many facets of the decision, especially for the long term.
Comments
danvm said: Completely different level of interactivity means that a linear stream of media, is a false equivalent of a gaming stream.
So you do not need to switch platforms. All you need to do is buy an Android device capable of running xCloud and/or Stadia. And that is when one of the primary benefits of the Android ecosystem can help you: serviceable Android devices can be very cheap. Can't tell the good from the bad? Allow me to state that Nokia and Motorola make quality low cost phones, and the Nokia ones in particular receive regular updates for 3 years. Tablets are a bit more challenging, but if you are not up for buying an Amazon Prime tablet and sideloading the Google apps onto it, your next best bet is probably the Samsung Galaxy A series tablets. If you are only going to use these devices for cloud gaming and whatever else is available to you on Android that is not available to you on iOS then the so-called horror show that Apple chauvinists insists exist on every other platform won't affect you.
This "if are you not with us you are against us" stuff ... it makes no sense from a consumer pespective. At all. The only one that makes sense is "I am going to find out what is best at doing the job and get it to do that job."
The content maybe different, but from a technical POV, music, TV/movies and games are being streamed to the device. Like I said before, considering what I have seen from TV/movies and music streaming, there is no evidence Apple would lose control or compromise users privacy.
Looking at the highest earning mobile games, hardly any of them would be more suitable in a streamed environment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_mobile_games
Streaming means taking the game UI rendering it on the server, compressing it with the audio and sending it down as a video. This often blurs the output, especially if the video lowers resolution to match the network speed. For games like Candy Crush, it just wouldn't make sense to do that.
The in-app purchasing options would all be different using a different account.
On one hand I understand Apple's position, streaming allows developers to bypass Apple's content restrictions in games, like violence and adult content and probably purchasing options but I see streaming as more complementary rather than competitive with native games, even years down the line. Streaming is a really niche gaming option that comes with a lot of limitations, one being paying for the service itself and the games on top, which are often locked to the service. It took about 7 months for Stadia to reach a million users on Android and that's just people who tried it, not active users. Mobile has billions of users.
https://www.ccn.com/fortnite-google-stadia-burn/
Due to the limited appeal, Apple not allowing it doesn't affect many people but it reinforces people's negative perceptions of their control over access to apps to decide for themselves. I don't think Apple would see any harm by allowing these game streaming apps on the store. They allow Microsoft's Remote Desktop app on iOS:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/remote-desktop-mobile/id714464092
If Microsoft setup a Windows server that anyone could access through Remote Desktop, I assume they'd be able to connect to XCloud through that like a stream within a stream. If anything, having streaming apps in the store could even improve sales of Apple TV boxes and there's nothing stopping Apple making their own game streaming service.
Playstation Now is one of the top streaming services, has been around for years and streams Playstation games to PC and console and it says here it has 2.2m users:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/19/21263492/sony-playstation-subscribers-active-users-ps4-subscription
That's less than 3% of gamers on one of the most popular streaming services. There's nothing to lose from allowing game streaming and nothing to lose from not allowing them. It'll be possible to do it via the browser anyway as long as the browser offers controller support. If Safari doesn't, Chrome etc on iOS should be able to.
This is no different than someone opening a restaurant and customers demanding the restaurant make and sell Starbuck's coffee verse the plain old black coffee they offer. There is an old saying "Before you judge a someone, walk a mile in their shoes," ie stop telling companies how to run their business unless you done it yourself. I am pretty sure those criticizing Apple have never run a business and everyone at the company continue to have job. At the end of the day every company has its + and -, I would have to say Apple's +'s far out weigh the -'s they have.
On side note, went to one of our favor places to eat recently, a local tavern, and they had these great Nachos. During this whole virus thing they reduced their menu to a limit set of items, Nachos we gone, they reopen recently, most of their items were back and the Nachos were still gone, our friend ask about them and the waitress said they were not coming back, reason being the owner decide an Irish pub should not be serving Nachos. The friend got all upset and began demanding they bring them back, I said to the friend you are free to go somewhere else to get Nachos and let it go. It just amazes me, how people feel so entitle they can demand companies to do things they want.
Second, as a user of Android devices, the idea that the services that come to Android first are terrible until Apple comes along and makes them good ... is fiction. Even if you agree with the very debatable idea that Apple's implementations of Android ideas are better that doesn't change the fact that those features worked capably for hundreds of millions of users for years on Android, and as a result constituted a real benefit for the owners of these devices.
Feel free to defend Apple's approach. But don't make up falsehoods while doing so. All that does is weaken's Apple's case.
As it stands parents can allow or not allow game downloads by age group, and can determine what's on a local game system by credit card or which physical media CDs/DVDs are purchased, but a streaming game system means their kids could be playing something like Mario Kart or Thrill Kill.
0. The remote desktop model that Apple accepts is not in the interests of Microsoft, Google, Nvidia or Amazon (who will launch a game streaming service next year) which is to attract more companies and users to their cloud services. Just as it took video games to shift desktop computing from being a subculture dominated by niche industries and professions to going mainstream, companies that provide cloud software services - Microsoft, Google, Amazon - and who make hardware for the cloud data centers - Amazon - have a vested interest in getting more companies, programmers and consumers to bypass current hardware-centered solutions for cloud ones. Quite naturally companies whose profits rely on consumers continually upgrading expensive hardware such as Apple are going to have the opposite goal. If there are enough great cloud-based apps to do everything you need, there is no need to invest in an $800 iPhone or iPad based on their superiority in executing these mobile apps on the local hardware. A $200 5G-enabled Android phone - which will start to roll out in September and will be commonplace next year - or $250 Wi-Fi 6 Android tablet $250 Chromebook will be just as good. Note that Samsung is dealing with this by promoting their devices as being the best ones at accessing Google and Microsoft services by offering deep integration with the former and software exlusives with the latter and form factors like foldables/bendables (which Microsoft will offer their own next month and Google next year) to take advantage. You should already imagine in your head Stadia or xCloud running in split screen mode with the game on the bigger screen and the camera/chat/stats/health meters on the smaller one because it is definitely coming.
1. Stadia's struggles SHOULD NOT be an indictment on the potential of streaming. Let's just say that Google did a terrible job and came out with a highly questionable product. Stadia would have required cutting edge/bleeding edge innovation in technology, business modeling and management to work. Instead Google hired a couple of former executives from Ubisoft that haven't had a prominent presence in the gaming mainstream - instead of someone from Fortnite, Minecraft or even the people behind the Nintendo Switch - and Stadia initially launched with expensive controllers connected to a special edition Chromecast. Add to that their tiny library consisting almost exclusively of 5-10 year old console or Steam titles that you had to purchase a second time.
2. PlayStation Now only has 2.2 million subscribers but it is not available on mobile. It is only available on PC and on PlayStation. Also, its business model is specifically designed to complement the PlayStation. Meaning that it is only really desirable if you own a PlayStation and want to play games while you don't have access to it. Google Stadia is explicitly for people who want to play AAA games but don't want to buy a console or gaming rig. As for xCloud, they are taking a middle path. They don't want to make it essentially worthless if you don't have an XBox - like the PlayStation service - and they don't want to replace the XBox or even necessarily your Windows gaming rig either (like Stadia). Instead, it is A) a service for existing XBox subscribers which has 65 million monthly active users - funny. you didn't mention that when you were mocking PlayStation and Stadia - and as a gateway for people who currently game primarily on other platforms - including mobile - to try their games and maybe get an XBox down the line.
3. What you really should be paying attention to here is Amazon. First off, they don't have an existing video game console empire to protect like Microsoft and Sony. They are also an actual business that sells products to consumers, unlike Google, who comes out with absolutely ridiculous products like an Android Wear watch with no physical button, no apps, no Wi-Fi connectivity, whose screen was unusable in direct sunlight and could only last 12-18 hours of moderate use before the battery died, and whose only use was to send voice search commands to your phone over Bluetooth (requiring you to access the phone to view the results of the search). Or the Nexus Player: 1 GB of RAM, no Ethernet, a very hard to get to mini-USB 2.0 as the only port, non-standard CPU, 8 GB of storage ... for the low price of $99. Or their original Chromebook Pixel ... $1300 and remember it was released long before Chromebooks supported Android or Linux. Or their early Pixel phones after they stopped partnering with LG and HTC ... flagship prices for devices with old CPUs, old camera designs, tiny batteries and not enough RAM because "software optimizations were going to maximize the hardware." Like Google, Amazon's product is going to be a full court press to get people to give up their consoles and gaming rigs. But like Microsoft, Amazon's product is actually going to be a good one with an actual content library that doesn't require you to spend $60 to repurchase a game that you bought on Steam 6 years ago.
So please revisit this comment a year from now. See how many people are using xCloud and Amazon as opposed to a product designed specifically not to compete with PlayStation hardware (PSN) and a product that had no real design at all from a company whose thing isn't designing and selling products in the first place (Stadia). And. yes, by then 5G on mobile devices and home mesh Wi-Fi 6 setups will be more widely available - you can buy Nest from Google and eero from Amazon for the latter, and Microsoft is partnering with TMobile to push xCloud for the former - to address the "lag" that has never bothered anyone in my household who uses Stadia (which despite having a terrible business model still fundamentally works ... i repurchased some of the cheaper Steam games to be played on Chromebooks and Android phones when on the go and it works fine ... it suits the needs of certain people in my household who have outgrown Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Angry Birds and other mobile titles).
Marvin, you don't need a 'speedy hi-spec machine" to have a great experience with Stadia or XCloud. Stadia for its part runs great on a Chromebook, or a Pixel smartphone, or your average home PC. That's the best part of these new game streamer services, the hardware is no longer a barrier or even significant part of the equation since all the heavy lifting is done by Google, and I assume the same is true of Microsoft's service.
Latency? Potentially a sticking point but from what I've been reading this morning if you have a 100GB internet service or better (which is no longer very unusual) there's no noticeable difference for the most part between playing from a local copy or playing streamed from Google. Again I'll assume MS is the same. Play on your TV, a crappy tablet with a nice display, your old home PC, a Pixel smartphone or a recent Samsung. or some other Android phones. You no longer require a 'gaming computer" or a standalone game box for gaming. IMO Google probably over-reached with the initial roll-out. A lot of promises and such and much of it slow to become reality. But today the service is much improved even from just 90 days ago. Here's a more recent video from the IGN guys who can be brutal at times, so if they have something positive to say it's probably authentic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q7zMrgFUFk
In fact, I will be getting Charter Cable into my business complex soon (they have routed the coax, but not connected us yet) with the promise of those speeds.
Comparisons are made to streaming service and Netflix, but this is idiotic. Apple is allowed to have different policies for different types of apps. Streaming games is not the same as streaming movies? Can you BUY movies from the appstore? No, you can't. It's a different model. If Apple allows it, it's guaranteed that game developers will take this loophole and exploit it by having some kind of hybrid cloud approach in order to avoid the appstore fee. It's a slippery slope. And yes, obviously Microsoft is gonna publicly bitch and whine about this, as its to their benefit. Doesn't mean the whining is justified.
Apple is free to change their appstore policies to allow this if they wish, but that would be their choice. They are also justified in leaving the rules as they are. The people that care about playing gamepass with an awkward as fuck controller attached to their iPhones might be vocal, but they're an EXTREME niche of iPhone owners. They're not relevant. I'd prefer Apple ensures rules that will keep the appstore healthy. Android can do whatever the hell they want with their appstore, does not mean Apple needs to follow suit. Even with a much larger marketshare, the Google Play store is a massive failure compared to the appstore.
Like banning Flash?
Point is Apple shouldn't automatically give in due to public outcry. This outcry is often short-sighted and ignorant of the many facets of the decision, especially for the long term.