gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files. That ultimately means that you need to create an iOS/iPad OS native application in order for it to pass review. If you don't want to do that, then you can skip the App Store and make the application available to iPhone/iPad users through the web browser (similar to Amazon Luna). It works that way because Apple considers the App Store to be their own creation and under their control and different from internet content...which is not their own creation and not under their control.
The argument against this is that Stadia/xCloud/whatever don't actually need a separate phone-level application per game. The phone isn't running any different code for the different games, so it would be a bunch of identical wrapper applications which each launch a single remote game. That's dumb, but it does allow Apple to have separate ratings and reviews and so on for each one in the App Store. Parents will be able to use Apple's parental controls to prevent their kids from getting Gears of War, or whatever.
My point is just that Apple Arcade isn't "an" application. It's more like how an Office 365 subscription works with the Microsoft Office applications. You pay a subscription which unlocks applications which run entirely locally to the phone/tablet/desktop.
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. Essentially they are streamed media. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAICT. Apple may insist there be a title for each game in the AppStore accompanied by ratings and reviews so that Apple is assured of getting a cut from every streamed game, but the game itself will not be served up by Apple.
So again I don't see any glaring difference from Netflix, For Microsoft and Apple owners this means either a 30% or thereabouts additional markup per game or with Microsoft eating the 30% which could make it a loss to offer the game in the first place. Microsoft may be desperate enough to get some exposure for their new game streaming service and eat the 30% before dropping iOS subscriptions somewhere down the line as some other high-profile companies have.
Sounds like a jilted ex-employee with a massive grudge. What an asshole.
And alternative stores have not been allowed since Day 1 of the appstore, for a myriad of reasons, most of which are directly related to the customer's experience, security, privacy, etc. Not like they fucking removed this option when coming out with Apple Arcade. Also, pretty sure 90% of stuff on the appstore "compete" with Apple's own apps in some capacity, so this argument is utterly absurd.
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAIK.
Well, if Netflix generated a movie on the fly in the cloud, based on a users input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware, yeah, then the same.
Streaming games have to have an actual front end that is an app as input, and likely to display the streaming media. A browser is certainly an available alternative.
Current gaming streaming services want to have a 3rd store as the front end, and that's an element of control that Apple is reticent to give. Doesn't mean that Apple is nefarious.
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAIK.
Current gaming streaming services want to have a 3rd store as the front end, and that's an element of control that Apple is reticent to give. Doesn't mean that Apple is nefarious.
I don't know who in the thread said it WAS nefarious.
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAIK.
Well, if Netflix generated a movie on the fly in the cloud, based on a users input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware, yeah, then the same.
By the way, I stream Apple TV on the fly from the cloud, based on my input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware. Why is your sentence pertinent, am I missing something?
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAIK.
Well, if Netflix generated a movie on the fly in the cloud, based on a users input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware, yeah, then the same.
By the way, I stream Apple TV on the fly from the cloud, based on my input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware. Why is your sentence pertinent, am I missing something?
And a very-related announcement from Microsoft who today committed to 10 points for the Windows App Store. MS is definitely not happy and joining the Facebook ranks I guess.
Developers will have the freedom to choose whether to distribute their apps for Windows through our app store. We will not block competing app stores on Windows.
We will not block an app from Windows based on a developer’s business model or how it delivers content and services, including whether content is installed on a device or streamed from the cloud.
We will not block an app from Windows based on a developer’s choice of which payment system to use for processing purchases made in its app.
We will give developers timely access to information about the interoperability interfaces we use on Windows, as set forth in our Interoperability Principles.
Every developer will have access to our app store as long as it meets objective standards and requirements, including those for security, privacy, quality, content and digital safety.
Our app store will charge reasonable fees that reflect the competition we face from other app stores on Windows and will not force a developer to sell within its app anything it doesn’t want to sell.
Our app store will not prevent developers from communicating directly with their users through their apps for legitimate business purposes.
Our app store will hold our own apps to the same standards to which it holds competing apps.
Microsoft will not use any non-public information or data from its app store about a developer’s app to compete with it.
Our app store will be transparent about its rules and policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing, apply these consistently and objectively, provide notice of changes and make available a fair process to resolve disputes.
And a very-related announcement from Microsoft who today committed to 10 points for the Windows App Store. MS is definitely not happy and joining the Facebook ranks I guess.
Developers will have the freedom to choose whether to distribute their apps for Windows through our app store. We will not block competing app stores on Windows.
We will not block an app from Windows based on a developer’s business model or how it delivers content and services, including whether content is installed on a device or streamed from the cloud.
We will not block an app from Windows based on a developer’s choice of which payment system to use for processing purchases made in its app.
We will give developers timely access to information about the interoperability interfaces we use on Windows, as set forth in our Interoperability Principles.
Every developer will have access to our app store as long as it meets objective standards and requirements, including those for security, privacy, quality, content and digital safety.
Our app store will charge reasonable fees that reflect the competition we face from other app stores on Windows and will not force a developer to sell within its app anything it doesn’t want to sell.
Our app store will not prevent developers from communicating directly with their users through their apps for legitimate business purposes.
Our app store will hold our own apps to the same standards to which it holds competing apps.
Microsoft will not use any non-public information or data from its app store about a developer’s app to compete with it.
Our app store will be transparent about its rules and policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing, apply these consistently and objectively, provide notice of changes and make available a fair process to resolve disputes.
For Windows tablets or computers.
MS probably sees this as groundbreaking. I don't, since their Windows App Store isn't all that successful.
"Regardless, these changes have me wondering anew about the Microsoft Store, which has never risen to the prominence of popular app stores like those from Apple and Google. I still believe that the Store is a good idea, but its lack of success is undeniable. As are the moves that Microsoft is making to ensure that trusted apps can be found and installed from elsewhere."
Seems like a slightly disingenuous wording of apple not allowing a store within a store.
Also to saying that the reason for this is due to competition with Apple Arcade is bizarre, Arcade is relatively new - the desire of 3rd parties to run a store within a store is not.
Part of Apple app security is the ability of the app store to sign apps and disable apps which are later shown to have malicious actions or inappropriate content.
A store with in the iOS or iPadOS or TVOS environments also assumes that those stores can sign apps, and if Apple finds problems with software distributed by a third party app store they'd basically have to disable every app distributed by that app store.
I can't see any circumstance where Apple would give away their control over the signing process - and thus not have the ability to disable a misbehaving app.
Historically, the Epic game store has distributed games with malware, and I'm not sure if the Epic game store has a signing process capable of disabling misbehaving product.
After all, Epic is in it for the $$$, and not the safety of their customers.
Movies, music and books are not non-linear. You can’t have a music mp3 file that has a hidde porn video in the middle and get it past Apple. With games that would be possible so games need reviewing. Each and every one.
I thought the whole MS Office suite was now available as Progressive Web Apps? If so, aren’t Excel etc. already available on iOS devices outside of the app-store? This is how the new Amazon streaming gaming service will work, MS etc. Just need to follow the same path, implement your game streaming service outside the app-store and you don’t have to follow Apple rules or pay Apple 30%. Epic could do the same with a solution for Fortnite if they could be bothered to do the work like Amazon are.
gatorguy said: In Microsoft's case the games would not typically be streamed from Apple who would have no responsibility beyond handling the subscription itself. Afterall, Netflix didn't need to submit each movie individually, only submit the Netflix app. Apple never had anything to do with the content streaming itself. Is there a difference?
Games are applications. Movies and music and books are files. The App Store requires applications to be reviewed, not files.
Actually they are not in this case. The games themselves will not exist on users iDevices but instead streamed on demand from Microsoft servers, not unlike movies streamed from Netflix AFAIK.
Well, if Netflix generated a movie on the fly in the cloud, based on a users input from a connected controller that isn't Apple hardware, yeah, then the same.
Streaming games have to have an actual front end that is an app as input, and likely to display the streaming media. A browser is certainly an available alternative.
Current gaming streaming services want to have a 3rd store as the front end, and that's an element of control that Apple is reticent to give. Doesn't mean that Apple is nefarious.
The YouTube app lets me stream live video, and add comments to a chat window using a non-Apple Bluetooth keyboard that the video presenters may react to.
But Apple doesn’t have a similar service that competes for revenue, so I guess that’s ok.
Seems like a slightly disingenuous wording of apple not allowing a store within a store.
Also to saying that the reason for this is due to competition with Apple Arcade is bizarre, Arcade is relatively new - the desire of 3rd parties to run a store within a store is not.
Part of Apple app security is the ability of the app store to sign apps and disable apps which are later shown to have malicious actions or inappropriate content.
Historically, the Epic game store has distributed games with malware, and I'm not sure if the Epic game store has a signing process capable of disabling misbehaving product.
After all, Epic is in it for the $$$, and not the safety of their customers.
Microsoft would not be distributing games to users devices so there's no chance of malware being delivered. Processing and interaction takes place on Microsoft servers with the media then streamed to your iDevice on demand. Kinda like a Netflix movie can't deliver malware to your iPhone so Apple doesn't need to examine every movie.
Sounds like a jilted ex-employee with a massive grudge. What an asshole.
FFS, some of you people are grotesquely predictable. This is cult-like behavior, and it’s also just plain uncivil. Grow the hell up. You do not know this person. Stop with the character-assassination. He’s criticizing internal policy of a company you like, not kicking your dog. You aren’t Apple. You’re a customer of Apple. There’s no reason to take this guy’s opinions so defensively. You weren’t there; he was. It’s actually possible he knows more than you do about the topic.
Why would you even go this far? If his comments hurt your stock prices, the problem is that *you’re playing the game*.
What a stupid entitled argument. Now people can't do what they want in their own house?
It's Apple's fu**ing invention. If it weren't for Apple we would all have flip phones and Blackberries and the App boom wouldn't have existed. I can't imagine being this entitled and nit-picking at the company that made me successful.
It's funny how suddenly the world owns Apple and Apple owns nothing.
But Apple allows alternate calendars, email, or calculators so it’s not like they’re out to protect all apps Apple.
Except that none of those alternative programs threaten Apple revenue in any way.
Yes they do. You can get most of those 3rd party apps on knockoff iPhones and knockoff iPads, so it makes it easier to leave the ecosystem for a cheap knockoff.
Seems like a slightly disingenuous wording of apple not allowing a store within a store.
Also to saying that the reason for this is due to competition with Apple Arcade is bizarre, Arcade is relatively new - the desire of 3rd parties to run a store within a store is not.
Part of Apple app security is the ability of the app store to sign apps and disable apps which are later shown to have malicious actions or inappropriate content.
Historically, the Epic game store has distributed games with malware, and I'm not sure if the Epic game store has a signing process capable of disabling misbehaving product.
After all, Epic is in it for the $$$, and not the safety of their customers.
Microsoft would not be distributing games to users devices so there's no chance of malware being delivered. Processing and interaction takes place on Microsoft servers with the media then streamed to your iDevice on demand. Kinda like a Netflix movie can't deliver malware to your iPhone.
Or perhaps a bit closer to what Microsoft wants to do with xCloud, VNC or MSRDP (yes, real MSRDP can let malware spread between client and server, but for the purposes of this discussion let's ignore that). There are VNC clients in the App Store. Same for MSRDP, SSH, and a few other do-stuff-on-a-remote-computer systems.
I would like to see Apple explain why remote desktop is okay, but remote desktop for games is not.
My point earlier was simply that Apple Arcade and xCloud only compete with one another in the way either competes with Netflix: there's only a limited amount of time in a day. They are not directly comparable, and it's silly for the guy the article is about to suggest they are.
Comments
My point is just that Apple Arcade isn't "an" application. It's more like how an Office 365 subscription works with the Microsoft Office applications. You pay a subscription which unlocks applications which run entirely locally to the phone/tablet/desktop.
So again I don't see any glaring difference from Netflix, For Microsoft and Apple owners this means either a 30% or thereabouts additional markup per game or with Microsoft eating the 30% which could make it a loss to offer the game in the first place. Microsoft may be desperate enough to get some exposure for their new game streaming service and eat the 30% before dropping iOS subscriptions somewhere down the line as some other high-profile companies have.
And alternative stores have not been allowed since Day 1 of the appstore, for a myriad of reasons, most of which are directly related to the customer's experience, security, privacy, etc. Not like they fucking removed this option when coming out with Apple Arcade. Also, pretty sure 90% of stuff on the appstore "compete" with Apple's own apps in some capacity, so this argument is utterly absurd.
Streaming games have to have an actual front end that is an app as input, and likely to display the streaming media. A browser is certainly an available alternative.
Current gaming streaming services want to have a 3rd store as the front end, and that's an element of control that Apple is reticent to give. Doesn't mean that Apple is nefarious.
MS probably sees this as groundbreaking. I don't, since their Windows App Store isn't all that successful.
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/227795/microsoft-takes-another-step-back-from-its-app-store
"Regardless, these changes have me wondering anew about the Microsoft Store, which has never risen to the prominence of popular app stores like those from Apple and Google. I still believe that the Store is a good idea, but its lack of success is undeniable. As are the moves that Microsoft is making to ensure that trusted apps can be found and installed from elsewhere."
Now open up the Xbox to 3rd parties.
A store with in the iOS or iPadOS or TVOS environments also assumes that those stores can sign apps, and if Apple finds problems with software distributed by a third party app store they'd basically have to disable every app distributed by that app store.
I can't see any circumstance where Apple would give away their control over the signing process - and thus not have the ability to disable a misbehaving app.
Historically, the Epic game store has distributed games with malware, and I'm not sure if the Epic game store has a signing process capable of disabling misbehaving product.
After all, Epic is in it for the $$$, and not the safety of their customers.
I thought the whole MS Office suite was now available as Progressive Web Apps? If so, aren’t Excel etc. already available on iOS devices outside of the app-store? This is how the new Amazon streaming gaming service will work, MS etc. Just need to follow the same path, implement your game streaming service outside the app-store and you don’t have to follow Apple rules or pay Apple 30%. Epic could do the same with a solution for Fortnite if they could be bothered to do the work like Amazon are.
But Apple doesn’t have a similar service that competes for revenue, so I guess that’s ok.
Why would you even go this far? If his comments hurt your stock prices, the problem is that *you’re playing the game*.
It's Apple's fu**ing invention. If it weren't for Apple we would all have flip phones and Blackberries and the App boom wouldn't have existed. I can't imagine being this entitled and nit-picking at the company that made me successful.
It's funny how suddenly the world owns Apple and Apple owns nothing.
Yes they do. You can get most of those 3rd party apps on knockoff iPhones and knockoff iPads, so it makes it easier to leave the ecosystem for a cheap knockoff.
I would like to see Apple explain why remote desktop is okay, but remote desktop for games is not.
My point earlier was simply that Apple Arcade and xCloud only compete with one another in the way either competes with Netflix: there's only a limited amount of time in a day. They are not directly comparable, and it's silly for the guy the article is about to suggest they are.