Xbox lead Phil Spencer talks xCloud in Safari, App Store fees

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2020
Phil Spencer is the lead of Xbox at Microsoft, and in a wide-ranging interview, he discusses bringing xCloud to mobile Safari and how Apple's App Store and the Xbox game store differs.

xCloud will launch on iOS and iPadOS Safari in the future
xCloud will launch on iOS and iPadOS Safari in the future


Apple has made things difficult for businesses to bring streaming services to the Xbox with a range of rules preventing the apps from existing on iOS. If a company wants a streaming service to exist, they must submit each game to the App Store as a separate entity rather than having a single app launcher.

Companies like Nvidia with GeForce Now and Google with Stadia have opted to bring their game streaming services to mobile Safari. Doing so lets the companies avoid Apple's rules as well as the App Store fees associated with it. Microsoft will soon follow suite.

Going with browser support rather than specific App Store support will give Microsoft access to more devices. "We have this avenue of a browser that works for us that we will go and build out," Spencer said, "which gives us access, frankly, to a lot of devices."

Spencer says that Apple is open to building out a proper user experience, but the browser is the better bet. "If the device is capable of running a capable web browser," he continues, "we're going to be able to bring games to it, which is pretty cool. You'll be able to bring all of your saved games and your friends and everything comes with you. It's just Xbox on this new screen with the games. Apple does remain open in the conversations that we have on this topic."

Despite not being able to run xCloud directly on iOS, Spencer says he understands Apple's perspective. "I don't say I agree with it, but they have a competitive product in Apple Arcade that is competitive with Xbox Game Pass," Spencer said. "I'm sure they like having Apple Arcade as the only game content subscription on their phone."

The interview was conducted by The Verge and they asked if Apple was limiting Safari's ability to support game streaming to push developers into the App Store.

"We have not seen that to date, just like we haven't on Chrome," said Spencer. "I will say that maybe more Chrome -- just because I happen to be an Android user, but Google's good at advertising their first-party services through their platform."

He goes on to say that the competitive nature of the platforms will be something to contend with as well, like will Chrome redirect users to Stadia when looking for Game Pass? "Those are things that aren't happening today," Spencer commented. I"'m not accusing anybody of things. That's just one of the positions we're in, not being a platform holder."

"I think when computing platforms really get to scale, like an Android, or an iOS, or Windows, there's a responsibility for us to keep those open and allow for competition on them." Spencer concluded. "I do fundamentally believe that. "

The wide-ranging interview covered many topics related to launching Xbox Series X and how things seem to have accelerated in the gaming space. Apple and Google often liken their platform business models to that of Xbox and other game consoles, Spencer was asked how he felt about the comparison.

He started by stating that it wasn't a fair comparison.

"If I can put Game Pass on iOS if you just look at the scale, there are a billion mobile phones on the planet," Spencer said. "Those are general compute platforms. A game console does one thing really; it plays video games. It's sold, for us, at a loss. Then you make money back by selling content and services on top. The model is just very, very different from something [on] the scale of Windows, or iOS, or Android."

The entire console market might sell 200 million game consoles in a gaming generation, with doesn't even touch a single year of phone sales. Spencer says scale definitely matters when considering the legal perspective of the business model.

"When you start looking at how we look at open platforms and access, those things do matter," Spencer concludes. "From a legal perspective, they matter. We know that at Microsoft. We had our DOJ time. I think as platforms get to scale, there's a responsibility there, absolutely."

Microsoft will release xCloud to mobile Safari sometime in the near future. Until then Nvidia has already placed it's gaming service GeForce Now on Safari, and Stadia is available via a third-party browser. You'll soon be able to play these games with an Xbox Series X controller as well, as Apple will include compatibility in a future update.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    "Apple and Google often liken their platform business models to that of Xbox and other game consoles, Spencer was asked how he felt about the comparison."

    Huh? Apple often does this. Google has mostly stayed out of it, focusing instead on:
    1. attempts to force them to split their search and ads business from the rest of the company and restrict their data collection ability, which would hurt them far more than any action against its app store
    2. Android allowing sideloading apps and alternate app stores

    "I don't say I agree with it, but they have a competitive product in Apple Arcade that is competitive with Xbox Game Pass," Spencer said. "I'm sure they like having Apple Arcade as the only game content subscription on their phone."

    I really wish he hadn't said that. While plenty of people think this - I don't; I believe it has more to do with Apple's possible aversion to streaming apps as it would diminish the value of premium hardware, meaning that there would be no reason not to buy a $250 Android phone instead of an $900 iPhone Pro Max; Apple would much prefer these companies release AAA games for iPads and Apple TVs which would allow them to brag about how Android devices lack the processing speed to run them - you really should not say such things without proof, especially about a competitor.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 2 of 17
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

    Microsoft have an identical requirement for their own games store - meaning there is a great deal of hypocrisy on show here.

    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    edited November 2020 foregoneconclusionRayz2016tmay
  • Reply 3 of 17
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,265member
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

    Microsoft have an identical requirement for their own games store - meaning there is a great deal of hypocrisy on show here.

    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    I agree! Should Apple be able to open their App Store on Xbox then sell games without paying them and market Apple’s devices and ecosystems  to those customers?
    edited November 2020 tmay
  • Reply 4 of 17
    A. The primary purpose of the App Store is to provide native apps for Apple hardware.
    B. Every game in the App Store is competing with Apple Arcade for users. 
    C. Game Club is a subscription service that exists within the App Store because it's based on native apps.
    D. If game streaming services are available in the browser on the same hardware, why wouldn't that also qualify as competition for Apple Arcade or App Store games? Same user, same wallet.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 5 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.
    You have to remember that MS had the xCloud app even before Apple had rules allowing game streaming.  So maybe MS had the thought that Apple would allow them to have the store-in-a-store that you mentioned, similar as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video.  At the end, Apple decided to make rules that were different from the App MS originally design.  IMO, I don't see MS deliberately creating an app with the purpose of breaking Apple rules.  It looks like that the Apple App Store wasn't ready for gaming cloud services.  If you ask me, I think that MS was right with their approach, similar as video / TV services do, click an app to access their content.    
    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.
    Microsoft maybe is right about general purpose devices and consoles.  Is clear that a gaming console is very different from a general purpose device, as an iPhone or iPad.  Even the content of the app store proves that gaming consoles are different.  For example, I don't see developers creating MDM, ERP, spreadsheets or documents apps for gaming consoles.  
    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    Yes, the gaming market is big, but there are many competitors in that market.  I don't see why MS specifically should have more scrutiny on the Xbox store. And it's sad to see MS, Google, NVidia and Amazon being forced to use Safari for their services.  Customer would had a far better experience if Apple allowed a native app, so it looks like Android users will have the best cloud gaming experiences thanks to Apple rules. 

    And I think reach more users is the real motivation for MS having xCloud / GamePass in iOS devices, not free advertising as you said.  


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    genovelle said:
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

    Microsoft have an identical requirement for their own games store - meaning there is a great deal of hypocrisy on show here.

    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    I agree! Should Apple be able to open their App Store on Xbox then sell games without paying them and market Apple’s devices and ecosystems  to those customers?
    I don't think that MS was looking to be in the Apple App store for free.  In an interview Phil Spencer was very clear that money wasn't an issue,  
    Microsoft remains committed to bringing Xbox Game Pass to iPhone | AppleInsider

    Also MS have no issues opening GamePass to EA Play.  Maybe if Apple approach MS they could make it happen.  The real question is, how many console gamers are looking forward to play Apple Arcade games in their consoles?  I think not too many.  
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 7 of 17
    danvm said: Microsoft maybe is right about general purpose devices and consoles.  Is clear that a gaming console is very different from a general purpose device, as an iPhone or iPad.  Even the content of the app store proves that gaming consoles are different.  For example, I don't see developers creating MDM, ERP, spreadsheets or documents apps for gaming consoles.  
    The problem with that argument is that if you say there's a clear use difference between a console and an iPhone, then you would also have to say that there's a clear use difference between an iPhone and a desktop/laptop computer. Spencer is using a double-standard to conflate iPhone use with Windows/Mac computer use. 
    edited November 2020 tmay
  • Reply 8 of 17
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

    Microsoft have an identical requirement for their own games store - meaning there is a great deal of hypocrisy on show here.

    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    Let's do this again, shall we?

    Google, Nvidia, Microsoft and Amazon will all have game streaming services on iOS by 1Q2021. Microsoft has 150 games already. Google is going to have 400 games by end of 2021. Amazon has 75 games already. Nvidia - when you factor in Epic and Steam games that are available - has hundreds of available titles. Many of these titles are available on at least 2 of these services, some are going to be available on all 4. Let's say that I subscribe to Stadia. If these 4 services followed Apple's rules and listed all of their games individually:

    A) how would I find all of the games that are available on Stadia?
    B) how do I distinguish the "Pro" games that I can play for free from the regular games that I have to buy?
    C) say that I want to play Grid. Grid is available on all 4 services. How do I tell Stadia Grid from Nvidia Grid from xCloud Grid from Luna Grid? 
    Do you care about any of these things? If you are a subscriber of cloud gaming services or someone who offers them, or someone who wants to license a game to a cloud company, you should.

    even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction

    We do divide up computers by the software people run on them. Mac versus Windows versus ChromeOS. Remember? Android versus iOS. For goodness sakes, iOS versus iPadOS versus watchOS vs tvOS. Client (macOS) versus server (Windows or Linux). It was only when and because Apple started advancing this crazy argument that anyone ever decided that no distinction should be made between a single purpose appliance - iPod - versus a general purpose computing device - iMac. And even now, Apple fans are the only ones who buy this crazy argument because it is Apple's argument. If it were Google or Samsung making this same argument you rightly would mock and ridicule it.

     How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny

    Except that he never at any point stated that Apple should be subjected to antitrust scrutiny. He was merely asked his opinion on Fortnite suing Apple, and Apple pulling Microsoft into this as part of their defense. Microsoft rightfully believes that being dragged into this when they have nothing to do with it is unfair. But since Tim Cook decided to pull Microsoft into this as some ploy to defend Apple's own business practices, it is fully appropriate for Microsoft to point out that the comparison is unfair.

    Also, while gaming is pulling in $200 billion a year, it is split across all these platforms:
    Nintendo
    XBox
    PlayStation
    Windows
    macOS
    iOS
    Android

    Or more broadly: console, PC, mobile. There are 3 roughly equal competitors in consoles. There are two roughly equal competitors in mobile. As for PC gaming, Windows dominates it ... but more so because of various decisions on the part of Apple than anything anticompetitive that Microsoft has done, plus - unlike macOS - the Windows gaming ecosystem is split amongst Lenovo, Dell, Acer, Asus, Razer, MSI and HP. And with the exceptions of platform exclusives - like Apple Arcade - games are generally released across multiple platforms. That is not what Fortnite is alleging about iOS, in which there is only one gatekeeper to the entire marketplace. 

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.

    No, it is that they prefer to deliver the service as an app instead of through the browser. On Windows and Android/ChromeOS, it is an app. One of the reasons is that - unlike Google and Microsoft - Apple supports and provides lots more tools for apps much better than they do PWAs. Besides your entire stance is ridiculous: Google, Nvidia and Amazon wanted to do apps also. Google, Nvidia and Microsoft all decided to release apps first before putting out a PWA. Amazon chose to do the PWA first and then do the app. Absolutely no one worked on apps and PWAs at the same time and there is a reason for this.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    danvm said: Microsoft maybe is right about general purpose devices and consoles.  Is clear that a gaming console is very different from a general purpose device, as an iPhone or iPad.  Even the content of the app store proves that gaming consoles are different.  For example, I don't see developers creating MDM, ERP, spreadsheets or documents apps for gaming consoles.  
    The problem with that argument is that if you say there's a clear use difference between a console and an iPhone, then you would also have to say that there's a clear use difference between an iPhone and a desktop/laptop computer. Spencer is using a double-standard to conflate iPhone use with Windows/Mac computer use. 
    The type of apps available in an iPhone and a PC / laptop are very similar.  Compare that to a console, where it has only three, games, TV / movies and music.  Like I said before, is clear that a gaming console is just for entertainment, not a general purpose device.  And considering what you see in the app store, it looks like customers and developers are clear of what to expect from those devices.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    cloudguy said:
    Microsoft are busy trying to frame this as Apple protecting Apple Arcade - when the fact is Apple didn't limit Microsoft, it was Microsoft who did not want to abide by the rules that all other app developers follow. Microsoft want a store-in-a-store, Apple are fine for streaming games as long as each title has its own separate app page. All titles on the app store, including those from Apple Arcade have their own app page.

    Microsoft have an identical requirement for their own games store - meaning there is a great deal of hypocrisy on show here.

    Microsoft like to talk of "general purpose" platforms as their justification for the double standard, but this is nonsense, even if we did divide up personal computers by the software people generally run on them, it doesn't mean they should have different rules, because that division itself is an arbitrary distinction - you might as well start making rules for casual game stores versus AAA game stores - it would be equally arbitrary.

    Also what is conveniently not mentioned: How big the gaming industry is: It's currently pulling about 200 billion a year - which is several times larger than the app store - so really from a competitive point of view it should be Microsoft's Xbox store that is receiving greater scrutiny.

    A final note is that there no technical limitation to bringing these streaming games stores to Safari, the motivation for having these in the app store is because Microsoft want the App store's large audience as free advertising.
    Let's do this again, shall we?

    Google, Nvidia, Microsoft and Amazon will all have game streaming services on iOS by 1Q2021. Microsoft has 150 games already. Google is going to have 400 games by end of 2021. Amazon has 75 games already. Nvidia - when you factor in Epic and Steam games that are available - has hundreds of available titles. Many of these titles are available on at least 2 of these services, some are going to be available on all 4. Let's say that I subscribe to Stadia. If these 4 services followed Apple's rules and listed all of their games individually:

    A) how would I find all of the games that are available on Stadia?
    B) how do I distinguish the "Pro" games that I can play for free from the regular games that I have to buy?
    C) say that I want to play Grid. Grid is available on all 4 services. How do I tell Stadia Grid from Nvidia Grid from xCloud Grid from Luna Grid? 
    Do you care about any of these things? If you are a subscriber of cloud gaming services or someone who offers them, or someone who wants to license a game to a cloud company, you should.
    This is a good example on how App Store rules not always are for the benefit of us, Apple customers.  Maybe Apple had something to work with this issues.  But based in what we read in the App Rules, it would be a bad experience when a user had multiples services.  I hope in the future there are changes in the rules that allows a good cloud gaming experience.  
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 11 of 17
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,527member
    cloudguy said:
    "Apple and Google often liken their platform business models to that of Xbox and other game consoles, Spencer was asked how he felt about the comparison."

    Huh? Apple often does this. Google has mostly stayed out of it, focusing instead on:
    1. attempts to force them to split their search and ads business from the rest of the company and restrict their data collection ability, which would hurt them far more than any action against its app store
    2. Android allowing sideloading apps and alternate app stores

    "I don't say I agree with it, but they have a competitive product in Apple Arcade that is competitive with Xbox Game Pass," Spencer said. "I'm sure they like having Apple Arcade as the only game content subscription on their phone."

    I really wish he hadn't said that. While plenty of people think this - I don't; I believe it has more to do with Apple's possible aversion to streaming apps as it would diminish the value of premium hardware, meaning that there would be no reason not to buy a $250 Android phone instead of an $900 iPhone Pro Max; Apple would much prefer these companies release AAA games for iPads and Apple TVs which would allow them to brag about how Android devices lack the processing speed to run them - you really should not say such things without proof, especially about a competitor.

    Weird. I thought knockoff iPhones and knockoff iPads were an invention? How would they run the same software exactly the same?

    Weird.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    danvm said: The type of apps available in an iPhone and a PC / laptop are very similar.
    That's obviously not true since Microsoft objected to the requirement that apps in their streaming service had to be submitted for review in the App Store. No reason to object if they really believed that the two platforms were so similar. Again, Spencer is relying on double-standards to make his argument. He tries to say an iPhone is a direct equivalent to a desktop/laptop computer, but then claims it's anticompetitive to have to submit desktop/laptop apps for review in the App Store. 
  • Reply 13 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    danvm said: The type of apps available in an iPhone and a PC / laptop are very similar.
    That's obviously not true since Microsoft objected to the requirement that apps in their streaming service had to be submitted for review in the App Store. No reason to object if they really believed that the two platforms were so similar. Again, Spencer is relying on double-standards to make his argument. He tries to say an iPhone is a direct equivalent to a desktop/laptop computer, but then claims it's anticompetitive to have to submit desktop/laptop apps for review in the App Store. 
    I haven't read anything that MS specifically rejected the idea of gaming being submitted for review in the App Store.  From the beginning Apple didn't allow cloud gaming services, while MS already had the xCloud app in TestFlight.  Maybe MS thought of the possibility that later, Apple rules for cloud gaming were going to be similar as movies / TV and music subscription services (IMO, that would made sense too).  And nono of those services submit their content to Apple for a reviewing process.  But Apple decided to treat them differently, and now we have the rules we see today.  IMO, there is no need to submit xCloud or Stadia games to Apple for review, considering they were already check by ESRB / PEGI.  But it's Apple Store, Apple rules.  At the end, Apple customers are missing the cloud gaming experience.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 17
    danvm said: I haven't read anything that MS specifically rejected the idea of gaming being submitted for review in the App Store.
    "Update: In a statement to CNET, Microsoft said that Apple's new guidelines don't offer an ideal experience for customers. From Microsoft: "This remains a bad experience for customers. Gamers want to jump directly into a game from their curated catalog within one app just like they do with movies or songs, and not be forced to download over 100 apps to play individual games from the cloud. We're committed to putting gamers at the center of everything we do, and providing a great experience is core to that mission."

    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-updates-app-store-review-guidelines-to-allow-streaming-game-services-that-submit-each-game-to-the-app-store-updated.2253819/

    Notice the wording about "bad experience" and "forced to download". It couldn't be more clear that MS objects to having to submit games for review AND that they don't really believe that a Windows PC and an iPhone are interchangeable platforms. Just look at the fact that MS has never previously bothered to release their popular 1st party games on iOS in the pre-streaming era. They should have done so if they really viewed iOS as being no different than a Windows PC. 
  • Reply 15 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    danvm said: I haven't read anything that MS specifically rejected the idea of gaming being submitted for review in the App Store.
    "Update: In a statement to CNET, Microsoft said that Apple's new guidelines don't offer an ideal experience for customers. From Microsoft: "This remains a bad experience for customers. Gamers want to jump directly into a game from their curated catalog within one app just like they do with movies or songs, and not be forced to download over 100 apps to play individual games from the cloud. We're committed to putting gamers at the center of everything we do, and providing a great experience is core to that mission."

    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-updates-app-store-review-guidelines-to-allow-streaming-game-services-that-submit-each-game-to-the-app-store-updated.2253819/

    Notice the wording about "bad experience" and "forced to download". It couldn't be more clear that MS objects to having to submit games for review AND that they don't really believe that a Windows PC and an iPhone are interchangeable platforms. Just look at the fact that MS has never previously bothered to release their popular 1st party games on iOS in the pre-streaming era. They should have done so if they really viewed iOS as being no different than a Windows PC. 
    IMO, MS comment was based in Apple rules forcing their app to work in a way that is not the best experience for customers.  You said that MS "MS has never previously bothered to release their popular 1st party games on iOS in the pre-streaming era."  But neither MS has released their popular games for macOS or Linux, and both are considered PC's.  Again, this issue is more related to Apple rules forcing MS to break their game experience than something related to a platform.  

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 17
    danvm said: But neither MS has released their popular games for macOS or Linux, and both are considered PC's.  Again, this issue is more related to Apple rules forcing MS to break their game experience than something related to a platform.  
    Microsoft's past history with iOS as a platform is entirely relevant to their current attempt at claiming that an iPhone should be legally viewed as being no different than a Windows PC. In the past, MS obviously wanted to limit their 1st party games to Windows and Xbox because they viewed it as an advantage for their own products. Now they want to complain that Apple is somehow limiting their ability to "compete" in the gaming market, which doesn't really make any sense relative to their past strategy of avoiding the iPhone and iOS altogether. And they still aren't interested in making individual games available on the App Store, unlike with Windows or Xbox. Clear double-standard. 
  • Reply 17 of 17
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,164member
    danvm said: But neither MS has released their popular games for macOS or Linux, and both are considered PC's.  Again, this issue is more related to Apple rules forcing MS to break their game experience than something related to a platform.  
    Microsoft's past history with iOS as a platform is entirely relevant to their current attempt at claiming that an iPhone should be legally viewed as being no different than a Windows PC. In the past, MS obviously wanted to limit their 1st party games to Windows and Xbox because they viewed it as an advantage for their own products. Now they want to complain that Apple is somehow limiting their ability to "compete" in the gaming market, which doesn't really make any sense relative to their past strategy of avoiding the iPhone and iOS altogether. And they still aren't interested in making individual games available on the App Store, unlike with Windows or Xbox. Clear double-standard. 
    You said that MS avoided to have their 1st party games in iOS devices, but maybe Apple is the one to blame for that.  It was at the end of last year, with iOS 13, that Apple certified the Xbox controller to be used in their devices.  Before that, how would you expect MS to bring their 1st games to a platform without controllers?  And two months after iOS 13, xCloud is released as a Beta.  Then it becomes clear that's the way MS will bring their games to other platforms, as iOS.  There is no need to develop 1st party games for iOS when you can access those games in the cloud with GamePass.  
Sign In or Register to comment.