What is stopping all the complaining companies from creating their own video game streaming devices and bypassing what they consider Apple’s restrictive App Store policies?
Say the companies do create their own video game streaming devices, what are the odds they will not allow other companies to create stores for games to be streamed to those devices?
It is easy to join the chant that Apple is being hostile to consumers when other companies are not willing to put their own money on the hardware line to do what Apple Has with iPhone and iPad. Facebook gave up on mobile phones because consumers did not want its spyware. Microsoft gave up on mobile phones because consumers did not its bloatware.
The complaining companies have decided hardware is too hard for them to pursue even when they promote their “must have” video game streaming services. Yes, Microsoft has Xbox. Would Microsoft allow Epic, Facebook, Google, Nvidia, Riot and others to create gaming services for Xbox? Would Epic allow companies to create and sell mods for Fortnite outside Epic’s store?
The complaining companies want a free ride. Let’s be honest here. Microsoft sees Apple’s hardware success and wants a piece of it for free. The same goes for Epic, Facebook, Google, Nvidia, Riot, etc. And, The complaining companies think there is an opportunity to collect the data Apple has prevented them from collecting. Microsoft’s interest in TikTok is 100% about data collection.
How long ago was AppleInsider reporting how Facebook and Google provided consumers with Enterprise Developer Licenses to bypass Apple’s security? I wonder if AppleInsider remembers the good old days when Microsoft promoted the PlayForSure DRM then created a better and exclusive DRM for itself?
I wonder if AppleInsider remembers publishing articles about Facebook experimenting on its customers subliminally to make them sad or happy? And articles about Facebook monitoring everything about game players using Oculus headsets?
I wonder if AppleInsider remembers Google limiting the functionality of Google Maps on iOS unless Apple provided more user data? And how Google Maps for iOS miraculously improved when Apple created Apple Maps?
I wonder if AppleInsider remembers Publishing articles about Microsoft giving up on Mixer, Cortana and a chat bot, a social media app and more?
I wonder if AppleInsider wonders why Spotify has not created a music player or speaker for its music streaming service?
AppleInsider and others will never tell complaining companies to invest money and time no matter how hard to make their dreams come true because the chant is Apple is wrong for being successful and Apple should be willing to allow multi-billion dollar companies create their own stores to compete with the App Store on iPhones and iPads while ignoring the truth that these companies only want to mine and sell Apple’s customer data.
Microsoft needs to find ways to remain relevant. There is no doubt in my mind Satya Nadella will illegally pay the US Treasury to be allowed to buy parts of TikTok. And Microsoft will do and say whatever it can to gain unrestricted access to iPhones and iPads. Facebook wants unfettered access to Apple’s customers to sell ads and promote disinformation from everybody willing to pay money to do so.
Epic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Riot, Spotify, etc could successfully work within Apple’s App Store guidelines but they do not want to do that. They know that by going to AppleInsider, Axios, Bloomberg, CNBC, Facebook, Forbes, Fortune, MacRumors, New York Times, Twitter, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, 9to5Mac, etc and the EU and US governments is time consuming but the effort is pretty much free compared to spending billions to truly compete with Apple.
AppleInsider knows this to be true but it is easier for AppleInsider to tell people Apple is wrong while Epic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Riot are absolutely right to protest Apple’s restrictive policies.
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...
Why you are moving the conversation to hardware? I already know that Apple have better hardware than most Android devices. But as today, the poor screen of the Chromebook does a far better job playing xCloud and Stadia games than iOS / iPadOS devices, since you cannot play xCloud games Apple devices. And I don't know if you saw the xCloud list, but there is a very good variety of recent and old games. Not all are "exhausted titles", as you said.
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.
I can think of many environments where Windows have better productivity devices compared to what Apple offers. But right now, the article is about xCloud and cloud gaming. And no, Apple haven't performed well, considering the article I posted. Metal haven't done anything to change things, and if Apple doesn't improve, neither Apple Silicon will help.
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.
I don't think MS is relying in the congress to change Apple. They just pointed out that Apple is the reason there is no xCloud for iOS and iPadOS, and clarify that they tried to bring the service to Apple devices.
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.
Apple is intersted in gaming, it just that they are not good at it. Look at Apple Arcade and when they try to push Apple TV as a gaming console. They don't even have a gaming control, neither develop major games.
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.
I don't think MS is relying in the congress to change Apple. They just pointed out that Apple is the reason there is no xCloud for iOS and iPadOS.
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.
Apple is intersted in gaming, it just that they are not good at it. Look at Apple Arcade and when they try to push Apple TV as a gaming console. They don't even have a gaming control, neither develop major games.
I remember all the the times over the years that someone here on AI would argue for Apple to buy Netflix. Instead, Apple is building up its own streaming service from scratch, and creating their own content. It may take Apple time to build up a competitive streaming service, but do you doubt that they can?
Be careful forecasting Apple's future. They have been much more disruptive than MS has been.
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.
His sentence is not wrong. Apple CAN do better than both. Apple just doesn't care about gaming the same way they do hardware innovation.
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.
Next year Apple as a platform is gonna be a fu**ing monster!!!!
iPhone/iPad/Mac will unite.
If Apple TV supports Mac chips, then it will also be a monster. Plus I hear "greedy Apple" will support single purchase for their entire eco-system. So if you buy an App for iPhone you get the other platforms free.
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.
Yes yes and yes... in theory... In practice, those things are handled by the game engine, and all mainstream game engines have been ported to Metal.
And they brought a lot of superior games to the AppStore...
Thought-provoking editorial and discussion! There seem to be two different debates going on here. One is about user experience and whether Apple’s App store policies are in the interest of consumers. The other is about whether Apple’s App store policies are reason for concern about anticompetitive behavior. After reading through this forum, my impression is that neither question has a straightforward answer. The argument that Apple can do what it wants because it owns the platform seems a bit simplistic in this context.
If the editorial’s description of the technical aspects of streaming games is accurate, the question about user experience is not primarily about safeguarding consumers but about consumers’ choice and discovery of products on the App store. In Apple’s favor, one could argue that it might be confusing for users if some games lived within separate streaming apps (and several streaming apps offered the same games) and could not be discovered via the App store search function. It shouldn’t be impossible to find a solution to this problem, though, as cross search via the TV app demonstrates. On the other hand, not giving consumers the choice about whether they want to run games on device or via the cloud seems a bit patronizing.
While I won’t be using streaming services for games anytime soon because I don’t like the subscription model, I am excited that this option has become technically feasible thanks to fast internet and 5G. As an Apple user, I would love to have the option to at least try this on my iPad instead of being forced to use a non-Apple device.
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).
@linuxplatform ;This comment is really helpful actually - thanks for providing a broader context to this discussion. I agree that it will be interesting to see what Amazon does!
I’m not sure why some readers described your post as pathetic or trolling. This one certainly is not. Maybe it has more to do with your tone in other posts and your use of expressions such as ‘facepalm’ than with your specfic arguments.
Despite not posting myself, I have been following AI forums for years because I appreciate the input and depth of discussion by some of the users. I wish, though, that the tone and back-and-forth in the discussions were friendlier and less judgmental.
Thought-provoking editorial and discussion! There seem to be two different debates going on here. One is about user experience and whether Apple’s App store policies are in the interest of consumers. The other is about whether Apple’s App store policies are reason for concern about anticompetitive behavior. After reading through this forum, my impression is that neither question has a straightforward answer. The argument that Apple can do what it wants because it owns the platform seems a bit simplistic in this context.
If the editorial’s description of the technical aspects of streaming games is accurate, the question about user experience is not primarily about safeguarding consumers but about consumers’ choice and discovery of products on the App store. In Apple’s favor, one could argue that it might be confusing for users if some games lived within separate streaming apps (and several streaming apps offered the same games) and could not be discovered via the App store search function. It shouldn’t be impossible to find a solution to this problem, though, as cross search via the TV app demonstrates. On the other hand, not giving consumers the choice about whether they want to run games on device or via the cloud seems a bit patronizing.
While I won’t be using streaming services for games anytime soon because I don’t like the subscription model, I am excited that this option has become technically feasible thanks to fast internet and 5G. As an Apple user, I would love to have the option to at least try this on my iPad instead of being forced to use a non-Apple device.
It's completely ridiculous to call Apple anti-competitive for THEIR invention on THEIR store.
If that's the case let's go after Amazon for not providing "competitive" links to Wal-Mart and Target on product pages. Let's go after Wal-Mart for not opening their stores to grocery chains for $0 profit.
Apple should NOT pay for their success. It's bad enough we've allowed knockoff products from Samsung and Huawei to masquerade as authentic devices and allowed Google Play and other knockoff App Stores to take Apple's IP without punishment.
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).
@linuxplatform ;This comment is really helpful actually - thanks for providing a broader context to this discussion. I agree that it will be interesting to see what Amazon does!
I’m not sure why some readers described your post as pathetic or trolling. This one certainly is not. Maybe it has more to do with your tone in other posts and your use of expressions such as ‘facepalm’ than with your specfic arguments.
Despite not posting myself, I have been following AI forums for years because I appreciate the input and depth of discussion by some of the users. I wish, though, that the tone and back-and-forth in the discussions were friendlier and less judgmental.
He has a reputation for making crap up to push his anti-Apple agenda. I destroyed the hell out of him in a Samsung thread.
@Beats ; Thanks for your response! I do see the point that an inventor or owner should have some control over their platform. At the same time, there is some merit in the argument that restrictive policies on platforms may stifle innovation or competition once that platform's size or power grows beyond a certain degree. That's the whole reason why there is antitrust regulation in many countries. To what extent a government should be able to intervene is a difficult question.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon is investigated for its own practices, but what Amazon does or does not do doesn't affect whether what Apple does is right or beneficial to its users. Amazon being worse doesn't make another company with similar behavior 'good'; it just makes it comparatively 'less bad'. However, I'm not even sure Apple is being uncompetitive in this case. There may be legitimate concerns, other than financial, that are driving Apple's decisions. That is why this discussion is so interesting to me.
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.
Mike: I will like to read on AI a similar article on tax elusion / BEPS by AAPL (and maybe other tech companies).
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.
Except no code is run on the iOS device. As has been discussed endlessly, it’s just video streaming, remember? You are being intentionally obtuse.
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.
Yes yes and yes... in theory... In practice, those things are handled by the game engine, and all mainstream game engines have been ported to Metal.
And they brought a lot of superior games to the AppStore...
All mainstream engines have not been ported. Most engines used by indies have. It takes more then just a Metal port to get a game to run on another platform. All of the games art assets and shaders need to be optimized for the GPU. This is compounded by the fact Apple GPUs work much different then Xbox/PC GPUs. I think Apple is using a better design that all GPUs should switch to, but it is not currently the dominant design for non-mobile gaming. Consoles and PC GPU vendors don’t want to make the switch yet since it is taking a step back before you can take two steps forward and you end up with a lot of incompatible software.
We are probably talking a year of effort per game to do the port with some games being impossible to reduce memory bandwidth enough. TBDR GPUs like Apples have tricks you can do in the shaders to keep data on the chip. With the right optimizations you generally only need about 25% of the bandwidth of an Xbox GPU. However these devices use GDDR6. That is still a huge gap to bridge.
Additionally, I don’t think publishers are going to release 100GB plus games on platforms that often only have 64-256GB of storage. For some games streaming is likely to be a better solution due to their sheer size. Don’t expect it to stop here. In a few years we may see terabyte sized games. Unreal Engine 5 has what they call nanite technology that encourages use of massive assets since the engine can efficiently deconstruct them to manageable amounts of data on the fly. This will be popular since these assets are easier to create then traditional assets. You still need to store these massive assets in the game.
Streaming is the future for many games since they are just too big to store local. Technology like nanite will continue to make games bigger. As gamers get used to instant play and streaming gets better, nobody will want to go back. In 5 years, I expect we will see consoles start to disappear and go full streaming. I think AR and casual games are the biggest niches that may stay local due to the technical constraints to streaming AR content and ability to play anywhere. Apple should focus on the class of games that will stay local for their store and not create AppStore rules that work against how the game industry is changing. The future of AAA games is streaming only. Nothing Apple does will stop that.
I am really excited about the prospect of AR games. Apple is well suited to rule that market, but they gave up on the AAA market a long time ago.
I hope Apple does something to allow this business model in the walled garden. At the moment this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Honest question because I haven’t been keeping up.
Is Stadia available on Xbox or PlayStation? Is PlayStation Now or xCloud available on each other’s platforms?
Ugh. Not this again.
1. Microsoft stated that iOS was the only general purpose operating system where video game streaming apps like this are not supported. XBox is not a general purpose operating system or platform. It is an appliance that runs video games. It is more similar to the original iPod or the first generation Apple TV appliances - designed for playing music in the former and streaming from a few preloaded apps in the latter - than iOS, iPadOS, Android, ChromeOS, Windows Desktop, Windows Server or desktop/server Linux. (Facepalm)
2. That being said, Microsoft does allow EA Access, a competing video game subscription streaming app on XBox.
3. That also being said, Microsoft would absolutely 100 love a subscription service for Playstation games on XBox. They would approve it in a heartbeat. The only issue is that Sony doesn't want to do it for their own competitive purposes.
Your trolling is truly pathetic.
All right. My trolling is pathetic. That is given. With that said ... can you actually rebut anything that I said with facts? No. You can't.
Honest question because I haven’t been keeping up.
Is Stadia available on Xbox or PlayStation? Is PlayStation Now or xCloud available on each other’s platforms?
Ugh. Not this again.
1. Microsoft stated that iOS was the only general purpose operating system where video game streaming apps like this are not supported. XBox is not a general purpose operating system or platform. It is an appliance that runs video games. It is more similar to the original iPod or the first generation Apple TV appliances - designed for playing music in the former and streaming from a few preloaded apps in the latter - than iOS, iPadOS, Android, ChromeOS, Windows Desktop, Windows Server or desktop/server Linux. (Facepalm)
2. That being said, Microsoft does allow EA Access, a competing video game subscription streaming app on XBox.
3. That also being said, Microsoft would absolutely 100 love a subscription service for Playstation games on XBox. They would approve it in a heartbeat. The only issue is that Sony doesn't want to do it for their own competitive purposes.
Your trolling is truly pathetic.
All right. My trolling is pathetic. That is given. With that said ... can you actually rebut anything that I said with facts? No. You can't.
Sure can. How about this little snippet:
“There is another side of this ... times where Apple initially opposed something and had to later backtrack and adopt it. Examples: stylus. AMOLED screens. NFC and mobile payments. Larger form factors. Widgets. Bringing true multi-tasking to their mobile platforms and adopting the multicore CPUs and RAM necessary to drive it.”
All the typical troll talking points wrapped up into a single sentence. And all of them lies, which makes you a liar AND a troll.
Apple was never “opposed” to any of these things and Apple didn’t “backtrack” on any of them. They simply added features as the market & technology allowed it.
I’m actually surprised you didn’t pull the Jobs quote about stylus out of your ass like so many trolls do. Well, at least you mentioned it which is close enough I guess.
Sure...what could possibly go wrong with allowing 3rd parties to have a single app that can sell a whole library of software through the app while bypassing App Store review. This is a naive take on Microsoft, Google, and Facebook as companies.
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.
I don't think MS is relying in the congress to change Apple. They just pointed out that Apple is the reason there is no xCloud for iOS and iPadOS.
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.
Apple is intersted in gaming, it just that they are not good at it. Look at Apple Arcade and when they try to push Apple TV as a gaming console. They don't even have a gaming control, neither develop major games.
I remember all the the times over the years that someone here on AI would argue for Apple to buy Netflix. Instead, Apple is building up its own streaming service from scratch, and creating their own content. It may take Apple time to build up a competitive streaming service, but do you doubt that they can?
Be careful forecasting Apple's future. They have been much more disruptive than MS has been.
I'm not doubting what Apple can do or forecasting Apple future. I just posted what it is today with Apple and 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.
His sentence is not wrong. Apple CAN do better than both. Apple just doesn't care about gaming the same way they do hardware innovation.
My post is also right when I said ""as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming", specifically when talking about cloud gaming.
elijahg said: Except no code is run on the iOS device. As has been discussed endlessly, it’s just video streaming, remember? You are being intentionally obtuse.
What's on the other end of the stream? An app. It's not a video file. People fixate on the streaming part as if it makes a difference, but it obviously does not. Apple allows game streaming apps on the App Store that aren't trying to sell the user additional apps within the program. You can stream PC games and console games on Apple devices as long as the games you're streaming were provided by yourself and not the app developer.
Comments
Say the companies do create their own video game streaming devices, what are the odds they will not allow other companies to create stores for games to be streamed to those devices?
It is easy to join the chant that Apple is being hostile to consumers when other companies are not willing to put their own money on the hardware line to do what Apple Has with iPhone and iPad. Facebook gave up on mobile phones because consumers did not want its spyware. Microsoft gave up on mobile phones because consumers did not its bloatware.
The complaining companies want a free ride. Let’s be honest here. Microsoft sees Apple’s hardware success and wants a piece of it for free. The same goes for Epic, Facebook, Google, Nvidia, Riot, etc. And, The complaining companies think there is an opportunity to collect the data Apple has prevented them from collecting. Microsoft’s interest in TikTok is 100% about data collection.
I wonder if AppleInsider remembers Google limiting the functionality of Google Maps on iOS unless Apple provided more user data? And how Google Maps for iOS miraculously improved when Apple created Apple Maps?
I wonder if AppleInsider remembers Publishing articles about Microsoft giving up on Mixer, Cortana and a chat bot, a social media app and more?
I wonder if AppleInsider wonders why Spotify has not created a music player or speaker for its music streaming service?
Chromebook does a far better job playing xCloud and Stadia games than iOS / iPadOS devices, since you cannot play xCloud games Apple devices. And I don't know if you saw the xCloud list, but there is a very good variety of recent and old games. Not all are "exhausted titles", as you said.
I can think of many environments where Windows have better productivity devices compared to what Apple offers. But right now, the article is about xCloud and cloud gaming. And no, Apple haven't performed well, considering the article I posted. Metal haven't done anything to change things, and if Apple doesn't improve, neither Apple Silicon will help.
Apple is intersted in gaming, it just that they are not good at it. Look at Apple Arcade and when they try to push Apple TV as a gaming console. They don't even have a gaming control, neither develop major games.
Be careful forecasting Apple's future. They have been much more disruptive than MS has been.
His sentence is not wrong. Apple CAN do better than both. Apple just doesn't care about gaming the same way they do hardware innovation.
Next year Apple as a platform is gonna be a fu**ing monster!!!!
iPhone/iPad/Mac will unite.
If Apple TV supports Mac chips, then it will also be a monster. Plus I hear "greedy Apple" will support single purchase for their entire eco-system. So if you buy an App for iPhone you get the other platforms free.
I don’t think they should have allowed any content streaming through third-party apps anyway.
And they brought a lot of superior games to the AppStore...
If the editorial’s description of the technical aspects of streaming games is accurate, the question about user experience is not primarily about safeguarding consumers but about consumers’ choice and discovery of products on the App store. In Apple’s favor, one could argue that it might be confusing for users if some games lived within separate streaming apps (and several streaming apps offered the same games) and could not be discovered via the App store search function. It shouldn’t be impossible to find a solution to this problem, though, as cross search via the TV app demonstrates. On the other hand, not giving consumers the choice about whether they want to run games on device or via the cloud seems a bit patronizing.
While I won’t be using streaming services for games anytime soon because I don’t like the subscription model, I am excited that this option has become technically feasible thanks to fast internet and 5G. As an Apple user, I would love to have the option to at least try this on my iPad instead of being forced to use a non-Apple device.
I’m not sure why some readers described your post as pathetic or trolling. This one certainly is not. Maybe it has more to do with your tone in other posts and your use of expressions such as ‘facepalm’ than with your specfic arguments.
Despite not posting myself, I have been following AI forums for years because I appreciate the input and depth of discussion by some of the users. I wish, though, that the tone and back-and-forth in the discussions were friendlier and less judgmental.
It's completely ridiculous to call Apple anti-competitive for THEIR invention on THEIR store.
If that's the case let's go after Amazon for not providing "competitive" links to Wal-Mart and Target on product pages. Let's go after Wal-Mart for not opening their stores to grocery chains for $0 profit.
Apple should NOT pay for their success. It's bad enough we've allowed knockoff products from Samsung and Huawei to masquerade as authentic devices and allowed Google Play and other knockoff App Stores to take Apple's IP without punishment.
He has a reputation for making crap up to push his anti-Apple agenda. I destroyed the hell out of him in a Samsung thread.
Thanks for your response! I do see the point that an inventor or owner should have some control over their platform. At the same time, there is some merit in the argument that restrictive policies on platforms may stifle innovation or competition once that platform's size or power grows beyond a certain degree. That's the whole reason why there is antitrust regulation in many countries. To what extent a government should be able to intervene is a difficult question.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon is investigated for its own practices, but what Amazon does or does not do doesn't affect whether what Apple does is right or beneficial to its users. Amazon being worse doesn't make another company with similar behavior 'good'; it just makes it comparatively 'less bad'. However, I'm not even sure Apple is being uncompetitive in this case. There may be legitimate concerns, other than financial, that are driving Apple's decisions. That is why this discussion is so interesting to me.
We are probably talking a year of effort per game to do the port with some games being impossible to reduce memory bandwidth enough. TBDR GPUs like Apples have tricks you can do in the shaders to keep data on the chip. With the right optimizations you generally only need about 25% of the bandwidth of an Xbox GPU. However these devices use GDDR6. That is still a huge gap to bridge.
I hope Apple does something to allow this business model in the walled garden. At the moment this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Examples: stylus. AMOLED screens. NFC and mobile payments. Larger form factors. Widgets. Bringing true multi-tasking to their mobile platforms and adopting the multicore CPUs and RAM necessary to drive it.”
All the typical troll talking points wrapped up into a single sentence. And all of them lies, which makes you a liar AND a troll.
Apple was never “opposed” to any of these things and Apple didn’t “backtrack” on any of them. They simply added features as the market & technology allowed it.
I’m actually surprised you didn’t pull the Jobs quote about stylus out of your ass like so many trolls do. Well, at least you mentioned it which is close enough I guess.