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
From a technical and Apple-visible content review perspective regarding Stadia and Xcloud, it isn't different at all. It's a H.265 stream coming down from a cloud server. What's the difference between Shadow or other over-the-web streaming PCs?
And, using a controller with Netflix, I can skip around in two dimensions on that content as I see fit.
I think Apple's view is from the historic record of games being filled with bugs and even game-breaking ones. Games can also be hacked and manipulated.
I've never heard of someone's DVD player crashing because they paused Titanic at a certain frame.
Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the H.265 video stream that both services send. No game code is run on the device.
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 in this bolded section, here. If you're asking if we've used Xcloud, we have, and the video is embedded in the post.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said. The monopoly bit in that comment was referring to other people's false assertions that Apple is not a monopoly, so therefore, it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior.
I think the problem with your definition of a monopoly is that it means any component in any company could be seen as a monopoly even if the company itself is not.
McDonalds is a company. One of the components of McDonalds is its chain of outlets. Now I can get stuff in McDonalds that isn’t made by McDonalds: Coke, Fanta, a flake in my McFlurry, one of those little squeezed orange drinks … But one thing I can’t get is a Burger King Whopper meal. In fact, I’ve yet to see any other convenience food set up shop inside McDs. I suspect this is partly because McDonalds has complete control of what is sold in its shop and in what conditions. And I’d be surprised if anyone can point to a law that says McDonalds has to even give a reason why they’re not allowing you to sell stuff in their stores.
And though I’m not an expert, I don’t think there’s a law that says Apple has to allow Microsoft to set up a stall in their store because Redmond’s own mobile platform crashed and burned.
Except that MS does via Office 365. But I think the main issue here with respect to gaming is a point made by John Gruber. Apple's policy does state what he's saying. But on the flip side, MS doesn't allow any gaming services on their Xbox App Store either. The argument of whether one is a general purpose device or not, to me, does not apply simply because iOS has been a sandboxed environment from the get go. So as a business model, it has been operated as a console even though it has a wide variety of apps. From a consumer or gaming perspective, do I agree with this move. NO. Moves like this have nothing to do with security, privacy or safety because MS has a great track record in gaming & curating their stores. This is Apple strictly trying to preserve its gaming services revenue cash cow. It isn't any secret that gaming is the biggest revenue generator on the App Store. What it will do is make Android the preferred destination for those that enjoy AAA gaming titles. Apple should be proactive with respect to making iOS the preferred destination for ALL gamers.
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?
Game streaming performance is piss poor, unless you have Fiber 1Gb Up/1Gb Down, and on top of that an extra layer of latency due to decompression on the fly frame by frame, with them pushing up to 30 seconds of pre-streamed, decompressed framing at you to attempt a smooth experience. All of this taxes the system resources. Sorry, but it's a shit show and Google knows it.
Microsoft failed at its own Mobile OS. It now wants to circumvent iOS and would Android but for the fact Android is a shit show and it already allows circumvention as a substitute for exploiting to hundreds of billions in information adverts and third party targeted ad selling which compromises all personal privacy--ala Facebook and Google. Microsoft is happy to capitalize on that and ignore the privacy concerns. Its sole focus is to exploit anywhere it can because it is seeing its peak in potential new revenues streams severely limited by its own decisions over the past decade.
Apple with it's well thought out ecosystem adds new markets when it feels the cross pollination is well tested, extends the vertical services and keeps expanding and offering quality products/services without selling out their user base personal information to the Government or third parties. The vast majority of profits in the entire computing industry for mobile goes through Apple.
Microsoft and Google want that to end. They cry foul and play bedfellows while they continue to syphon information from their customers in exchange for a perceived short-term `freedom' that for the life of me is nothing more than a slow dependency on all information going through them both.
Apple has no interest in monetizing on your personal shopping needs, your addictions, your habits, your rituals, etc. They provide you with an ecosystem of platforms that let you decide how you want to work, be entertained and invest your life's energy. If their approach is not your cup of tea there is always Microsoft through Google, Samsung through Google, Google, or other Android vendors through Google. Their platform is familiar to Microsoft as it is as filled with the similar types of Malware that Microsoft made billions off of providing `security services' while keeping the fundamental designs of its OS broken and available for exploit. Android does the same under Google.
Apple pays bounties for improved security testing [exploits] and people fall silent. Before, they were inundated with whining that not all security is flawless and all their services are bug free. By comparison it's just assumed Android is a maze of hacks and broken services, but open for you to tinker on--thus perceived freedom.
You want your games streamed then use the Web interface, Microsoft/Google and stop whining that you aren't the creator of Apple's Ecosystem you so enviously wish you owned.
Steve Jobs won. Check mate.
Mic drop. Exit stage left.
The only reason to drop the mic and exit the stage is that this fellow made 100 assertions with only 1 of them being true, and that 1 had absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both? Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
Facepalm. Apple Silicon has absolutely positively nothing to do with streaming. Apple Silicon is hardware.Streaming is software as a service which is designed by nature to be inherently hardware agnostic.
Being able to offer video game streaming requires the very best cloud infrastructure, architecture and development. Apple has none of those. Instead, for years after Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Google Play Movies and TV etc. existed, Apple only offered limited video streaming ability through iTunes. Apple Music was their first legit streaming app and they didn't even develop it ... they bought Beats and repurposed it.
To give you an idea of how far behind Apple is on this, Google is offering Stadia and Microsoft is offering xCloud using their own cloud platforms - Azure and Google Cloud Platform - that have existed for ages (GCP since 2008, Azure since 2010). Nvidia is partnering with AWS to offer GeForce Now, sure, but it features their own cloud data center and virtualization hardware platform - Nvidia Grid - that they sell to Google and others. You should really check it out ... Nvidia GRID offers virtualized PCs, GPUs and applications. Where xCloud and Stadia are examples of software-as-a-service, Nvidia GRID is infrastructure as a service.
By contrast ... Apple doesn't even host or manage their own iCloud. Instead, iCloud is a product that relies on cloud services provided by Amazon (AWS) and Google (Google Cloud Platform). So does Apple Music and Apple TV+ by the way. If Apple had to rely on their own expertise or resources to pull off either, they would have no chance. And no, they aren't in the cloud hardware game with infrastructure as a service products - or even generic data center computing, storage or networking resources - either. There are some Apple advocates in the tech media - including a couple of articles I read a few months ago - that if Apple Silicon outperforms Intel hardware by a large enough margin, that would allow them to enter the cloud/data center hardware market. But what the writer doesn't realize is that the cloud's needs and Apple's offerings are the opposite. The cloud needs cheap, general purpose hardware and Apple only supplies expensive, specialized hardware. So given the choice between a faster option that costs $500,000 and you can only deploy on it what Apple allows, a data center will buy two alternatives that are slower but cost $350,000 and allows them to put whatever they want on it whenever they need it, and do so without giving it half a second's thought.
And that is presuming that Apple is capable of building server-class ARM chips that are capable of outperforming Ampere and other ARM server vendors. That is, er, presuming a lot. Beating the Qualcomm Snapdragon/Samsung Exynos mobile chips and beating the ARM chips that already power the fastest supercomputer in the world are two very different things.
Sorry to ruin your efforts to exhaust all your computing literacy in one post but, Apple has both inherently and absolutely no need to be hardware agnostic.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
Microsoft couldn't maintain 3 Halo games on iOS ... but they have the massively successful XBox (which is the #2 or #3 console depending on how Nintendo is doing and by far the most successful online gaming subscription service in XBox Live), the even more successful DirectX gaming APIs and competely thoroughly dominate PC gaming. Allow me to ask of you ... what color is the sky in your world? Further, there are tons of successful Microsoft games on iOS. By contrast has Apple themselves ever made a single mobile game?
They failed in mobile computing ... but dominate in PC, enterprise and cloud computing. 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Apple by contrast only succeeds in mobile computing (even there they have 15% market share) are niche at best in PC computing (7%) and have no presence in enterprise or cloud computing at all. Meaning at best 2 out of 4.
And no, Apple Silicon does not solve latency at all. Latency is solved at the network layer. Apple does not make 4G or 5G modems. They buy them from Qualcomm. Metal for rendering? The rendering is not done on the device! The rendering is done by the cloud server, which is then streamed to the device over H.265 or VP9! Which is why you are able to play Stadia on Chromebooks that have Intel Celeron CPUs with the absolute cheapest graphics stacks available and will be able to play Stadia or xCloud on very cheap Android devices.
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 in this bolded section, here. If you're asking if we've used Xcloud, we have, and the video is embedded in the post.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said. The monopoly bit in that comment was referring to other people's false assertions that Apple is not a monopoly, so therefore, it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior.
I think the problem with your definition of a monopoly is that it means any component in any company could be seen as a monopoly even if the company itself is not.
McDonalds is a company. One of the components of McDonalds is its chain of outlets. Now I can get stuff in McDonalds that isn’t made by McDonalds: Coke, Fanta, a flake in my McFlurry, one of those little squeezed orange drinks … But one thing I can’t get is a Burger King Whopper meal. In fact, I’ve yet to see any other convenience food set up shop inside McDs. I suspect this is partly because McDonalds has complete control of what is sold in its shop and in what conditions. And I’d be surprised if anyone can point to a law that says McDonalds has to even give a reason why they’re not allowing you to sell stuff in their stores.
And though I’m not an expert, I don’t think there’s a law that says Apple has to allow Microsoft to set up a stall in their store because Redmond’s own mobile platform crashed and burned.
Except that MS does via Office 365. But I think the main issue here with respect to gaming is a point made by John Gruber
Not really a stall though is it. It’s basically a subscription.
Yup, I’d agree with Gruber’s statement. But it doesn’t really make a difference, since Apple is entitled to refuse one app from a company while accepting another.
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 in this bolded section, here. If you're asking if we've used Xcloud, we have, and the video is embedded in the post.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said. The monopoly bit in that comment was referring to other people's false assertions that Apple is not a monopoly, so therefore, it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior.
I think the problem with your definition of a monopoly is that it means any component in any company could be seen as a monopoly even if the company itself is not.
McDonalds is a company. One of the components of McDonalds is its chain of outlets. Now I can get stuff in McDonalds that isn’t made by McDonalds: Coke, Fanta, a flake in my McFlurry, one of those little squeezed orange drinks … But one thing I can’t get is a Burger King Whopper meal. In fact, I’ve yet to see any other convenience food set up shop inside McDs. I suspect this is partly because McDonalds has complete control of what is sold in its shop and in what conditions. And I’d be surprised if anyone can point to a law that says McDonalds has to even give a reason why they’re not allowing you to sell stuff in their stores.
And though I’m not an expert, I don’t think there’s a law that says Apple has to allow Microsoft to set up a stall in their store because Redmond’s own mobile platform crashed and burned.
Except that MS does via Office 365. But I think the main issue here with respect to gaming is a point made by John Gruber
Not really a stall though is it. It’s basically a subscription.
Yup, I’d agree with Gruber’s statement. But it doesn’t really make a difference, since Apple is entitled to refuse one app from a company while accepting another.
The way I look at it, is that services like Netflix or Kindle or no more or less a stall than xCloud, Stadia or any other gaming service. Apple has arbitrarily decided, for no legitimate reason, that games should be dealt with differently than other types of content.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
Microsoft couldn't maintain 3 Halo games on iOS ... but they have the massively successful XBox (which is the #2 or #3 console depending on how Nintendo is doing and by far the most successful online gaming subscription service in XBox Live), the even more successful DirectX gaming APIs and competely thoroughly dominate PC gaming. Allow me to ask of you ... what color is the sky in your world? Further, there are tons of successful Microsoft games on iOS. By contrast has Apple themselves ever made a single mobile game?
They failed in mobile computing ... but dominate in PC, enterprise and cloud computing. 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Apple by contrast only succeeds in mobile computing (even there they have 15% market share) are niche at best in PC computing (7%) and have no presence in enterprise or cloud computing at all. Meaning at best 2 out of 4.
And no, Apple Silicon does not solve latency at all. Latency is solved at the network layer. Apple does not make 4G or 5G modems. They buy them from Qualcomm. Metal for rendering? The rendering is not done on the device! The rendering is done by the cloud server, which is then streamed to the device over H.265 or VP9! Which is why you are able to play Stadia on Chromebooks that have Intel Celeron CPUs with the absolute cheapest graphics stacks available and will be able to play Stadia or xCloud on very cheap Android devices.
RIF dude, RIF.
Since Apple has no need to stream to Chromebooks and to Celeron CPUs, they can always leverage the power of Metal present on every iOS device. Keep that H265 stream or whatever bitstream or byte code as small as possible, leave parts of the rendering to user’s device... Possibilities are endless...
But hey, after all you stream to your own silicon, dude...
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
Besides, Apple performs well in the gaming market. All mainstream game engines have been re-written from scratch to support Metal. If there were no benefits, developers wouldn’t bother with that. And Apple Silicon runs the Rise of the Tomb Raider as fluently as native under Intel translation, as you’ve watched on the Keynote. Don’t worry, I am as speechless as you on that.
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 in this bolded section, here. If you're asking if we've used Xcloud, we have, and the video is embedded in the post.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said. The monopoly bit in that comment was referring to other people's false assertions that Apple is not a monopoly, so therefore, it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior.
I think the problem with your definition of a monopoly is that it means any component in any company could be seen as a monopoly even if the company itself is not.
McDonalds is a company. One of the components of McDonalds is its chain of outlets. Now I can get stuff in McDonalds that isn’t made by McDonalds: Coke, Fanta, a flake in my McFlurry, one of those little squeezed orange drinks … But one thing I can’t get is a Burger King Whopper meal. In fact, I’ve yet to see any other convenience food set up shop inside McDs. I suspect this is partly because McDonalds has complete control of what is sold in its shop and in what conditions. And I’d be surprised if anyone can point to a law that says McDonalds has to even give a reason why they’re not allowing you to sell stuff in their stores.
And though I’m not an expert, I don’t think there’s a law that says Apple has to allow Microsoft to set up a stall in their store because Redmond’s own mobile platform crashed and burned.
Except that MS does via Office 365. But I think the main issue here with respect to gaming is a point made by John Gruber
Not really a stall though is it. It’s basically a subscription.
Yup, I’d agree with Gruber’s statement. But it doesn’t really make a difference, since Apple is entitled to refuse one app from a company while accepting another.
The way I look at it, is that services like Netflix or Kindle or no more or less a stall than xCloud, Stadia or any other gaming service. Apple has arbitrarily decided, for no legitimate reason, that games should be dealt with differently than other types of content.
Exactly. And it is consumer-hostile. Denying iPhone users access to the most premium mobile gaming experiences just to maintain a stranglehold on App Store gaming revenues... not exactly in the spirit of "delighting the customer". Question is is it allowed in the major Competition Laws....
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 in this bolded section, here. If you're asking if we've used Xcloud, we have, and the video is embedded in the post.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said. The monopoly bit in that comment was referring to other people's false assertions that Apple is not a monopoly, so therefore, it is not engaging in anti-trust behavior.
I think the problem with your definition of a monopoly is that it means any component in any company could be seen as a monopoly even if the company itself is not.
McDonalds is a company. One of the components of McDonalds is its chain of outlets. Now I can get stuff in McDonalds that isn’t made by McDonalds: Coke, Fanta, a flake in my McFlurry, one of those little squeezed orange drinks … But one thing I can’t get is a Burger King Whopper meal. In fact, I’ve yet to see any other convenience food set up shop inside McDs. I suspect this is partly because McDonalds has complete control of what is sold in its shop and in what conditions. And I’d be surprised if anyone can point to a law that says McDonalds has to even give a reason why they’re not allowing you to sell stuff in their stores.
And though I’m not an expert, I don’t think there’s a law that says Apple has to allow Microsoft to set up a stall in their store because Redmond’s own mobile platform crashed and burned.
Except that MS does via Office 365. But I think the main issue here with respect to gaming is a point made by John Gruber. Apple's policy does state what he's saying. But on the flip side, MS doesn't allow any gaming services on their Xbox App Store either. The argument of whether one is a general purpose device or not, to me, does not apply simply because iOS has been a sandboxed environment from the get go. So as a business model, it has been operated as a console even though it has a wide variety of apps. From a consumer or gaming perspective, do I agree with this move. NO. Moves like this have nothing to do with security, privacy or safety because MS has a great track record in gaming & curating their stores. This is Apple strictly trying to preserve its gaming services revenue cash cow. It isn't any secret that gaming is the biggest revenue generator on the App Store. What it will do is make Android the preferred destination for those that enjoy AAA gaming titles. Apple should be proactive with respect to making iOS the preferred destination for ALL gamers.
You are making assumptions. Xbox does allow competing game services (like EASports) on their store. They have them and from what I’ve heard they would even be happy to allow a PlayStation game streaming service on Xbox if Sony were willing.
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?
Game streaming performance is piss poor, unless you have Fiber 1Gb Up/1Gb Down, and on top of that an extra layer of latency due to decompression on the fly frame by frame, with them pushing up to 30 seconds of pre-streamed, decompressed framing at you to attempt a smooth experience. All of this taxes the system resources. Sorry, but it's a shit show and Google knows it.
Based in what I have seen (since I'm an iOS user and cannot use xCloud, thank you Apple), I don't think that you need 1GB connection. Obvious you'll have a better experience with more bandwidth, but still the experience I'm seeing today is very good. Even though, I think is impressive what MS, Google and NVidia have done with their cloud gaming services. Apple Arcade? No so much...
Microsoft failed at its own Mobile OS. It now wants to circumvent iOS and would Android but for the fact Android is a shit show and it already allows circumvention as a substitute for exploiting to hundreds of billions in information adverts and third party targeted ad selling which compromises all personal privacy--ala Facebook and Google. Microsoft is happy to capitalize on that and ignore the privacy concerns. Its sole focus is to exploit anywhere it can because it is seeing its peak in potential new revenues streams severely limited by its own decisions over the past decade.
Apple with it's well thought out ecosystem adds new markets when it feels the cross pollination is well tested, extends the vertical services and keeps expanding and offering quality products/services without selling out their user base personal information to the Government or third parties. The vast majority of profits in the entire computing industry for mobile goes through Apple.
Microsoft and Google want that to end. They cry foul and play bedfellows while they continue to syphon information from their customers in exchange for a perceived short-term `freedom' that for the life of me is nothing more than a slow dependency on all information going through them both.
Do you have evidence that xCloud or Stadia compromise users privacy? BTW, is interesting how you mention Google in the list of these bad companies that want your data. If they are so bad, why Apple accept from them billions of dollars to make them the Google Search the default search engine of all iOS and macOS devices? Is suppose that if Apple trust their customers to them, they cannot be as bad as you said, right?
Apple has no interest in monetizing on your personal shopping needs, your addictions, your habits, your rituals, etc. They provide you with an ecosystem of platforms that let you decide how you want to work, be entertained and invest your life's energy. If their approach is not your cup of tea there is always Microsoft through Google, Samsung through Google, Google, or other Android vendors through Google. Their platform is familiar to Microsoft as it is as filled with the similar types of Malware that Microsoft made billions off of providing `security services' while keeping the fundamental designs of its OS broken and available for exploit. Android does the same under Google.
Apple pays bounties for improved security testing [exploits] and people fall silent. Before, they were inundated with whining that not all security is flawless and all their services are bug free. By comparison it's just assumed Android is a maze of hacks and broken services, but open for you to tinker on--thus perceived freedom.
Apple don't provide a platform that allows me to decide how to play. I don't want Apple Arcade, neither the long list of IAP games I'm seeing in the App Store. What MS, Google and Nvidia offers is far better for me. And do you have evidence of malware in xCloud or Stadia?
You want your games streamed then use the Web interface, Microsoft/Google and stop whining that you aren't the creator of Apple's Ecosystem you so enviously wish you owned.
Steve Jobs won. Check mate.
SJ definitely won in mobile, but not in gaming. Remember how he showed Halo in the keynote? Too bad MS was the one who took it to the next level.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
I know what Apple Arcade, and the issue is that is the only option Apple offers a part of the long list of IAP games in the App Store. IMO, Apple don't have something better than xCloud or Stadia.
Besides, Apple performs well in the gaming market. All mainstream game engines have been re-written from scratch to support Metal. If there were no benefits, developers wouldn’t bother with that. And Apple Silicon runs the Rise of the Tomb Raider as fluently as native under Intel translation, as you’ve watched on the Keynote. Don’t worry, I am as speechless as you on that.
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
I know what Apple Arcade, and the issue is that is the only option Apple offers a part of the long list of IAP games in the App Store. IMO, Apple don't have something better than xCloud or Stadia.
No, they don't have as streaming but they DO have as native apps. Because they DO have better devices, much better than Celeron Chromebooks. What benefit would xCloud and Stadia bring to iOS users other than making available all those old titles which already exhausted their commercial lifecycle as standalone products? How would a rendering made for Celeron Chromebook appeal to the owners of modern iPhones which shine with all their HDR, Dolby Vision, Metal 2 and alike? There are a lot of pirate streaming services on the web with their low quality crappy content, do you watch any of those or do you subscribe to a quality streaming service? If you want to play a game streamed for Chromebooks you don't need an iPhone, buy a cheap Android phone or tablet or a Chromebook, that's it...
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
That's another issue and a more broad one. Today Apple provides the best productivity computers and mobile devices that can make their owners decent game players too and also provides the best core support for gaming down to the Metal (of the GPU). Game studios develop, Apple publishes. Apple has performed that job fairly well.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
I know what Apple Arcade, and the issue is that is the only option Apple offers a part of the long list of IAP games in the App Store. IMO, Apple don't have something better than xCloud or Stadia.
No, they don't have as streaming but they DO have as native apps. Because they DO have better devices, much better than Celeron Chromebooks. What benefit would xCloud and Stadia bring to iOS users other than making available all those old titles which already exhausted their commercial lifecycle as standalone products? How would a rendering made for Celeron Chromebook appeal to the owners of modern iPhones which shine with all their HDR, Dolby Vision, Metal 2 and alike? There are a lot of pirate streaming services on the web with their low quality crappy content, do you watch any of those or do you subscribe to a quality streaming service? If you want to play a game streamed for Chromebooks you don't need an iPhone, buy a cheap Android phone or tablet or a Chromebook, that's it...
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
That's another issue and a more broad one. Today Apple provides the best productivity computers and mobile devices that can make their owners decent game players too and also provides the best core support for gaming down to the Metal (of the GPU). Game studios develop, Apple publishes. Apple has performed that job fairly well.
Apple chips are great, but it isn’t trivial to port from an immediate mode renderer designed for GDDR6 memory to a bandwidth constrained—but fast—tile deferred renderer. No doubt Apple GPUs are great, but the port is non-trivial. Porting an older game like tomb raider (released 2013) would be easier. The Xbox series x games that are streamed will be a decade before they could run on mobile. By then the developer would have moved on. There are platform exclusives that can only be streamed. The file size is also a dealbreaker. Even 7 year old tomb raider is large. Streaming is the only way to go for this class of game.
Streaming is also a great way to access older games that will never be ported to modern hardware.
AAA class games could be built from scratch for Metal, but there isn’t a large enough market for that right now. Most development pipelines take years even if Apple were to subsidize starting a console class game store. You would at least need something like streaming to bridge the gap.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
I know what Apple Arcade, and the issue is that is the only option Apple offers a part of the long list of IAP games in the App Store. IMO, Apple don't have something better than xCloud or Stadia.
No, they don't have as streaming but they DO have as native apps. Because they DO have better devices, much better than Celeron Chromebooks. What benefit would xCloud and Stadia bring to iOS users other than making available all those old titles which already exhausted their commercial lifecycle as standalone products? How would a rendering made for Celeron Chromebook appeal to the owners of modern iPhones which shine with all their HDR, Dolby Vision, Metal 2 and alike? There are a lot of pirate streaming services on the web with their low quality crappy content, do you watch any of those or do you subscribe to a quality streaming service? If you want to play a game streamed for Chromebooks you don't need an iPhone, buy a cheap Android phone or tablet or a Chromebook, that's it...
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
That's another issue and a more broad one. Today Apple provides the best productivity computers and mobile devices that can make their owners decent game players too and also provides the best core support for gaming down to the Metal (of the GPU). Game studios develop, Apple publishes. Apple has performed that job fairly well.
Apple chips are great, but it isn’t trivial to port from an immediate mode renderer designed for GDDR6 memory to a bandwidth constrained—but fast—tile deferred renderer. No doubt Apple GPUs are great, but the port is non-trivial. Porting an older game like tomb raider (released 2013) would be easier. The Xbox series x games that are streamed will be a decade before they could run on mobile. By then the developer would have moved on. There are platform exclusives that can only be streamed. The file size is also a dealbreaker. Even 7 year old tomb raider is large. Streaming is the only way to go for this class of game.
Streaming is also a great way to access older games that will never be ported to modern hardware.
AAA class games could be built from scratch for Metal, but there isn’t a large enough market for that right now. Most development pipelines take years even if Apple were to subsidize starting a console class game store. You would at least need something like streaming to bridge the gap.
There's a user base of a billion active iPhone / iPad users. And it'll only get larger once Apple transitions the Mac to Apple Silicon.
Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both?
Because, as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming.
Thanks to Apple Silicon Apple is already years ahead on that. Besides, they can offer that streaming to all game developers who sell in the AppStore without alienating them and maintaining the rich content already on sale.
I don't think that Apple Silicon is the magic cure to the issue Apple has with the gaming business.
How so? MS couldn’t even maintain three Halo games on iOS !.. As they failed on mobile computing, they spectacularly failed on mobile gaming too.
The point is not the issue Apple you claim has with the gaming business, the point is Apple Silicon IS the cure to the game streaming issue on mobile by bringing in low bandwidth low latency high quality Metal rendering and high FPS.
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
Apple Arcade is not a cloud service, it is a distribution model. Nothing runs on “Apple Arcade” everything runs on user’s device.
I know what Apple Arcade, and the issue is that is the only option Apple offers a part of the long list of IAP games in the App Store. IMO, Apple don't have something better than xCloud or Stadia.
No, they don't have as streaming but they DO have as native apps. Because they DO have better devices, much better than Celeron Chromebooks. What benefit would xCloud and Stadia bring to iOS users other than making available all those old titles which already exhausted their commercial lifecycle as standalone products? How would a rendering made for Celeron Chromebook appeal to the owners of modern iPhones which shine with all their HDR, Dolby Vision, Metal 2 and alike? There are a lot of pirate streaming services on the web with their low quality crappy content, do you watch any of those or do you subscribe to a quality streaming service? If you want to play a game streamed for Chromebooks you don't need an iPhone, buy a cheap Android phone or tablet or a Chromebook, that's it...
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
That's another issue and a more broad one. Today Apple provides the best productivity computers and mobile devices that can make their owners decent game players too and also provides the best core support for gaming down to the Metal (of the GPU). Game studios develop, Apple publishes. Apple has performed that job fairly well.
Apple chips are great, but it isn’t trivial to port from an immediate mode renderer designed for GDDR6 memory to a bandwidth constrained—but fast—tile deferred renderer. No doubt Apple GPUs are great, but the port is non-trivial. Porting an older game like tomb raider (released 2013) would be easier. The Xbox series x games that are streamed will be a decade before they could run on mobile. By then the developer would have moved on. There are platform exclusives that can only be streamed. The file size is also a dealbreaker. Even 7 year old tomb raider is large. Streaming is the only way to go for this class of game.
Streaming is also a great way to access older games that will never be ported to modern hardware.
AAA class games could be built from scratch for Metal, but there isn’t a large enough market for that right now. Most development pipelines take years even if Apple were to subsidize starting a console class game store. You would at least need something like streaming to bridge the gap.
So, why not just sell a $150 Android device for streamed games, and cut Apple out entirely from the process?
The truth of the matter is that there is peak gaming during this pandemic, attention of Congress to the size of the major tech companies, and Apple's vast user base to sell into. The problem that I see is if MS, et al, aren't successful in pushing Congress to force Apple to accept streaming games by the end of the pandemic, then Apple will have the silicon and resources to actually compete in gaming as a premium mobile hardware platform. it they so choose.
Right now, I don't think that Apple is all that interested in gaming, and I don't think that attempting to force Apple into a different business model will be successful, nor do these hardware/software partnerships for Android OS designed to take on Apple look all that successful.
Comments
Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the H.265 video stream that both services send. No game code is run on the device.
They failed in mobile computing ... but dominate in PC, enterprise and cloud computing. 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Apple by contrast only succeeds in mobile computing (even there they have 15% market share) are niche at best in PC computing (7%) and have no presence in enterprise or cloud computing at all. Meaning at best 2 out of 4.
And no, Apple Silicon does not solve latency at all. Latency is solved at the network layer. Apple does not make 4G or 5G modems. They buy them from Qualcomm. Metal for rendering? The rendering is not done on the device! The rendering is done by the cloud server, which is then streamed to the device over H.265 or VP9! Which is why you are able to play Stadia on Chromebooks that have Intel Celeron CPUs with the absolute cheapest graphics stacks available and will be able to play Stadia or xCloud on very cheap Android devices.
RIF dude, RIF.
Yup, I’d agree with Gruber’s statement. But it doesn’t really make a difference, since Apple is entitled to refuse one app from a company while accepting another.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/30/apple-arcade-game-strategy-shift/
Interesting how Nintendo had the worst performing console compare to the Xbox and PS4 (I think even even slower than Apple devices), and developed some of the best games in this generation. This is an example on how hardware is not an excuse to perform well in the gaming market.
But hey, after all you stream to your own silicon, dude...
Besides, Apple performs well in the gaming market. All mainstream game engines have been re-written from scratch to support Metal. If there were no benefits, developers wouldn’t bother with that. And Apple Silicon runs the Rise of the Tomb Raider as fluently as native under Intel translation, as you’ve watched on the Keynote. Don’t worry, I am as speechless as you on that.
Do you have evidence that xCloud or Stadia compromise users privacy? BTW, is interesting how you mention Google in the list of these bad companies that want your data. If they are so bad, why Apple accept from them billions of dollars to make them the Google Search the default search engine of all iOS and macOS devices? Is suppose that if Apple trust their customers to them, they cannot be as bad as you said, right?
Apple don't provide a platform that allows me to decide how to play. I don't want Apple Arcade, neither the long list of IAP games I'm seeing in the App Store. What MS, Google and Nvidia offers is far better for me. And do you have evidence of malware in xCloud or Stadia?
SJ definitely won in mobile, but not in gaming. Remember how he showed Halo in the keynote? Too bad MS was the one who took it to the next level.
Again, Nintendo didn't need Apple Silicon to bring some of the best games in the market. Second, Apple perform well as a a platform in the mobile gaming market. But they have not develop any games (a part from Chess in macOS). And trying to push Apple TV haven't succeed. These are some of the reason I think Apple is not doing good in gaming.
That's another issue and a more broad one. Today Apple provides the best productivity computers and mobile devices that can make their owners decent game players too and also provides the best core support for gaming down to the Metal (of the GPU). Game studios develop, Apple publishes. Apple has performed that job fairly well.
Streaming is also a great way to access older games that will never be ported to modern hardware.
The truth of the matter is that there is peak gaming during this pandemic, attention of Congress to the size of the major tech companies, and Apple's vast user base to sell into. The problem that I see is if MS, et al, aren't successful in pushing Congress to force Apple to accept streaming games by the end of the pandemic, then Apple will have the silicon and resources to actually compete in gaming as a premium mobile hardware platform. it they so choose.
Right now, I don't think that Apple is all that interested in gaming, and I don't think that attempting to force Apple into a different business model will be successful, nor do these hardware/software partnerships for Android OS designed to take on Apple look all that successful.