Meh. Who cares? If you’re wasting your life playing games, you have your priorities wrong.
I'm like you, a complete non gamer but I understand the appeal (addiction even) of them and the importance they have on people's lives. For me, personally, it is like a waste of my time.
I wouldn't say their priorities are wrong though.
I love fishing and many might say that is a waste of valuable time. Sometimes days on end of my life without a catch.
But what is a waste of time and what isn't is a very personal thing. I think if you're happy doing something, it's worth it.
Fishing, camping and hunting are absolutely better than video gaming. This is an objective fact rather than a subjective opinion.
Agree, agree, disagree. Why is killing something for real better than killing a virtual something? The virtual being doesn't suffer, the real being does. Therefore it is an "objective fact" that hunting is not better than video gaming. What are you, a primitive hunter-gatherer?
Apple is not a monopoly and has the right to set their policies. Proof is, xCloud will work with Android.
So, the choice is clear. If you wish to stream games on your mobile device, you go for Android. Period.
Companies have the right not to go in certain areas. Should it be a mistake, it will be their bad. But please, stop this “anti-consumer” nonsense!
I find it funny how many people have no idea how businesses are run or how the economy works in the US, and companies are free to associate and not associate with other businesses and customers as they see fit. So many people get upset a company is not doing what they want, and want to demand a company do business in a particular way. This is why competition exist. If you do not like a company's business model or practices go to a different company who does what you like, if none exist you are free to create your own company and do it the way you think it should be done. Welcome to America land of opportunities to take advantage of an under served market there is nothing holding you back.
This is no different than someone opening a restaurant and customers demanding the restaurant make and sell Starbuck's coffee verse the plain old black coffee they offer. There is an old saying "Before you judge a someone, walk a mile in their shoes," ie stop telling companies how to run their business unless you done it yourself. I am pretty sure those criticizing Apple have never run a business and everyone at the company continue to have job. At the end of the day every company has its + and -, I would have to say Apple's +'s far out weigh the -'s they have.
On side note, went to one of our favor places to eat recently, a local tavern, and they had these great Nachos. During this whole virus thing they reduced their menu to a limit set of items, Nachos we gone, they reopen recently, most of their items were back and the Nachos were still gone, our friend ask about them and the waitress said they were not coming back, reason being the owner decide an Irish pub should not be serving Nachos. The friend got all upset and began demanding they bring them back, I said to the friend you are free to go somewhere else to get Nachos and let it go. It just amazes me, how people feel so entitle they can demand companies to do things they want.
It's amazing that people like you think Apple is above scrutiny or the law and that they can just abuse their power.
It just amazes me, how people feel so entitle they can demand companies to do things they want.
Just like how companies have to give a warranty, and how companies have to deliver on the promises and the product as advertised? So it would be ok if you gave Apple $1000 for a Macbook and they decided that they didn't want to send a Macbook and instead sent a potato. You don't feel that you would be entitled to that Mac, and a court demanding they sent the Macbook you purchased?
First remotely playing games, next it will be apps. What’s to stop companies from creating remote (I.e. “steamed”) app stores disconnecting Apple’s control and user privacy?
This is a very slippery slope. I can understand Apple taking this approach.
Like others are saying, if you don’t like it move to Android.
Office already exists as a web-based version. So do many, many other apps.
From a technical and latency perspective, an app makes more sense for gameplay. This can be circumvented with Xcloud or Stadia with some kind of controller API for Safari in iOS, but I'm not expecting it.
The web-based version is dependent on having an internet connection for it to work, whereas an app will work with or without one. If Microsoft provided an Internet-only Office365 option, no one would use it.
On larger screen devices, like the iPad Pro, the Office app absolutely demands an internet connection for authentication of paid status and access to all features.
I can easily see companies sprouting and start creating streaming app stores that essentially removes all control from Apple, and it starts with the gateway drug that is the video game. Microsoft could then be an App market for other developers creating apps to host on Microsoft's service that will stream to any device. You may think it's the same as using a game controller to watch Netflix, I do not. It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this, but one this is for certain... I don't trust any company other than Apple, and the apps Apple curates to make sure what I do on my device is secure from nefarious 3rd-party services. If this model becomes the norm, hackers won't need to bother with Apple... they will simply hack the companies hosting 3rd-party streaming app services for a goldmine of data.
I haven't seen evidence that streaming from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Spotify and Amazon Music removes control from Apple. Why is going to be different with xCloud, Stadia and other cloud gaming services? Millions of users already can play movies, TV and music with those services, bypassing the iTunes Store and Apple Music, and Apple still have control of their environment.
While I like the idea of "streaming" a video game, the approach is more a bandaid than something revolutionary... it basically allows substandard hardware to "pretend" to be something more. To each their own. I suppose I'm just old-school where binaries belong on the device. If this is the future of app services, then Apple users should be concerned.
xCloud is an alternate way to play the games you have in GamePass. You can download and play them in your PC and console, and extend to mobile devices. IMO, that's revolutionary, specially when you consider the technology behind it.
I couldn't give a lesser f**k if it runs on Android. Everyone knows that Android Security is an oxymoron so it's no surprise that Microsoft is playing that card.
Does MS had any other card to play in the mobile market?
The web-based version is dependent on having an internet connection for it to work, whereas an app will work with or without one. If Microsoft provided an Internet-only Office365 option, no one would use it.
Sure ... just like billions of people don't use Google Docs, Sheets and Slides. Seriously where do people like this come from?
Grow up.
Many business will not use Internet-only apps like GoogleDocs for a myriad of reasons. Enough with the drama queen antics.
The web-based version is dependent on having an internet connection for it to work, whereas an app will work with or without one. If Microsoft provided an Internet-only Office365 option, no one would use it.
Sure ... just like billions of people don't use Google Docs, Sheets and Slides. Seriously where do people like this come from?
Grow up.
Many business will not use Internet-only apps like GoogleDocs for a myriad of reasons. Enough with the drama queen antics.
Dude, first off that wasn't what you said. You said "no one would use it." Second, lots of businesses use GSuite, SALESFORCE and a ton of other Internet-only apps for a myraid of reasons. You were simply completely totally 100% wrong. Own it and move on.
If an app is capable on the Xbox that can stream and play PlayStation games via Sony cloud, would they allow it. Or vice versa.
I'm not sure specifically what you're asking. As the piece addresses, there are apps that can stream from your console to your iOS device. There are apps that will stream from a remote PC, even a cloud PC.
Apple doesn't allow cloud game streaming subscription services from anybody.
This is Apple’s platform they can make whatever rules they want. And the rules are intended to protect the platform. I don’t want app-stores wihin the app-store or a game-store within the app-store. If Apple allow this then we will just get more and more lower quality online only streamed “apps” so the developer lists the shell app for free while taking all the proceeds without giving Apple anything. Apple rules protect the platform and ensure it’s long-term survival.
However, all Microsoft has to do is make a web version that works in Safari, i.e. make a web-app instead of an app-store app. But then Microsoft wouldn’t get to piggyback all of Apple’s investment and efforts for nothing would they? Microsoft are lazy and want a free ride.
Microsoft (and all the other whingers that want a free ride from Apple) should be ashamed of themselves.
Apple rules are pro-consumer because they ensure safety, privacy and more importantly long-term success of the eco-system.
I agree with this article. I usually defend Apple's actions, but not this time. This is anti-consumer.
Like banning Flash?
Exactly. People forget the massive outcry over that, and at the end of the day Apple stuck to its guns and was better off for it. As well as the entire industry. But at the time they hardly got support from anyone. They were decried by blogs, developers, and consumers.
Point is Apple shouldn't automatically give in due to public outcry. This outcry is often short-sighted and ignorant of the many facets of the decision, especially for the long term.
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. 2-in-1s, or at least detachables with keyboard and trackpad devices as well as support built into the OS. Multi-platform cloud-based subscription services like Apple Music and Apple TV+. All of these things were to some degree mocked and panned by Apple as bad ideas and bad design - the best stylus is the finger! - only to be quietly adopted later. My favorite was when Apple made the stunning claim: "We switched from LCD to OLED when OLED technology advanced to when it was good enough to use" when OLED use was so widespread - hence proven - that it was regularly used had been in CHEAP phones and tablets made by multiple manufacturers for years by then, and pretty much the only company still using LCD for their better devices (other than Apple) was LG (because they made them).
So yes, there are times when Apple stands against the tide of history and is proven right. But there are also plenty of times that Apple stands against the tide of history and is proven wrong. Apple isn't some preternatural being with the gift of foresight. They are just a company who is as likely to be wrong or right as any other. Sure, their "wait and see" approach may make them less likely to commit the sort of obvious blunders that Google is infamous for and Microsoft made under Ballmer (then again the wait and see approach before coming out with their mobile product failed Microsoft badly because Android was firmly established as the iOS competitor for consumers and developers by the time Windows Phone finally came out ... and even after waiting all that time it was still a terrible product with little first or third party app support and a recycled Zune Player UX/UI ... its purpose was to achieve consistency with their desktop Metro UI, but the phone didn't actually interact with the Windows 8 desktop in any way and PC users hated the WIndows 8 UI too!) but with the ideas that actually do work, a lot of companies make a ton of money by getting their good products to market first.
If an app is capable on the Xbox that can stream and play PlayStation games via Sony cloud, would they allow it. Or vice versa.
I'm not sure specifically what you're asking. As the piece addresses, there are apps that can stream from your console to your iOS device. There are apps that will stream from a remote PC, even a cloud PC.
Apple doesn't allow cloud game streaming subscription services from anybody.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I am just wondering. What if someone create a $10 device that can stream games from Xbox or PlayStation. Will they allow it? No need to pay for this expensive console.
As for Apple I understand their position as well. If large companies can stream this, all the indie games will either get absorbed or no one will buy them. They don’t have the marketing dollars. That said I believe Apple will lose on this one. It is just bad timing right now.
One more point, Apple want to protect the app-store from ultra-violent or pornographic material as much as possible. If they allow game-store apps then they will end up with filth ridden games like on Steam. Not cool. There’s a place for that, it’s outside the app-store, it’s called the web / web-apps.
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.
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.
While I don't agree with Apple's position, that's a really pathetic argument.
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.
This article is extremely one sided. Who is to say that big game publishers wouldn't absorb significant numbers of mobile game developers to their own streaming platforms and practically deprive Apple iOS and Mac game stores over night. This is a standalone business model so you bet your ass that big game publishers or even new venture capital wouldn't try this. Not all gaming should work this way, mobile games should run locally so Apple is right and they cant open the flood gates by letting MS or Google do it.
I'm glad you agree that Apple is trying to preserve its revenue stream. That's the whole point of the article. If developers choose to throw in with streaming services and get paid by them, instead of Apple paying them, so be it. Maybe Apple will be forced to change things as a result of that competition, which is the whole point of capitalism, is it not?
In regards to other comments discussing "monopoly." A monopoly isn't by itself illegal, nor is it required for anti-trust arguments. All anti-trust needs is illegal and unnecessary blocking or interference with other businesses. That's it.
How, exactly, is Apple interfering in other businesses? MS, et al, aren't entitled to run Apple's business.
You imply that Apple has no corporate sovereignty, and in fact, if Apple is aware of how little gaming will affect their business, streaming or otherwise, shouldn't they have the ability to test their business model in the market against competing business models?
Unless of course, you have some sort of Minority Report operation that can predetermine success of a particular business model.
I like Apple's curated approach, and I like that Apple doesn't rush into whatever the fad of the market is. Do you really think that streaming games, affected by latency issues, will be a wonderful experience from the get go?
Perhaps you can provide a detailed, first person experience with specific hardware and services, to all of us.
I really have no idea what you're asking for, here.
In regards to the "run Apple's business" - I have no idea where you got that from what I said.
Are you currently using a game streaming service on other hardware, ie, an Android device, and what is your experience with latency?
Game streaming performance is piss poor, unless you have Fiber 1Gb Up/1Gb Down, and on top of that an extra layer of latency due to decompression on the fly frame by frame, with them pushing up to 30 seconds of pre-streamed, decompressed framing at you to attempt a smooth experience. All of this taxes the system resources. Sorry, but it's a shit show and Google knows it.
Microsoft failed at its own Mobile OS. It now wants to circumvent iOS and would Android but for the fact Android is a shit show and it already allows circumvention as a substitute for exploiting to hundreds of billions in information adverts and third party targeted ad selling which compromises all personal privacy--ala Facebook and Google. Microsoft is happy to capitalize on that and ignore the privacy concerns. Its sole focus is to exploit anywhere it can because it is seeing its peak in potential new revenues streams severely limited by its own decisions over the past decade.
Apple with it's well thought out ecosystem adds new markets when it feels the cross pollination is well tested, extends the vertical services and keeps expanding and offering quality products/services without selling out their user base personal information to the Government or third parties. The vast majority of profits in the entire computing industry for mobile goes through Apple.
Microsoft and Google want that to end. They cry foul and play bedfellows while they continue to syphon information from their customers in exchange for a perceived short-term `freedom' that for the life of me is nothing more than a slow dependency on all information going through them both.
Apple has no interest in monetizing on your personal shopping needs, your addictions, your habits, your rituals, etc. They provide you with an ecosystem of platforms that let you decide how you want to work, be entertained and invest your life's energy. If their approach is not your cup of tea there is always Microsoft through Google, Samsung through Google, Google, or other Android vendors through Google. Their platform is familiar to Microsoft as it is as filled with the similar types of Malware that Microsoft made billions off of providing `security services' while keeping the fundamental designs of its OS broken and available for exploit. Android does the same under Google.
Apple pays bounties for improved security testing [exploits] and people fall silent. Before, they were inundated with whining that not all security is flawless and all their services are bug free. By comparison it's just assumed Android is a maze of hacks and broken services, but open for you to tinker on--thus perceived freedom.
You want your games streamed then use the Web interface, Microsoft/Google and stop whining that you aren't the creator of Apple's Ecosystem you so enviously wish you owned.
This is Apple’s platform they can make whatever rules they want. And the rules are intended to protect the platform. I don’t want app-stores wihin the app-store or a game-store within the app-store. If Apple allow this then we will just get more and more lower quality online only streamed “apps” so the developer lists the shell app for free while taking all the proceeds without giving Apple anything. Apple rules protect the platform and ensure it’s long-term survival.
However, all Microsoft has to do is make a web version that works in Safari, i.e. make a web-app instead of an app-store app. But then Microsoft wouldn’t get to piggyback all of Apple’s investment and efforts for nothing would they? Microsoft are lazy and want a free ride.
Microsoft (and all the other whingers that want a free ride from Apple) should be ashamed of themselves.
Apple rules are pro-consumer because they ensure safety, privacy and more importantly long-term success of the eco-system.
There is no store-in-a-store issue here. You are thinking about Steam. A game streaming service doesn’t have a store. It is all-you-can-eat just like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc.
Comments
xCloud is an alternate way to play the games you have in GamePass. You can download and play them in your PC and console, and extend to mobile devices. IMO, that's revolutionary, specially when you consider the technology behind it.
Does MS had any other card to play in the mobile market?
and play PlayStation games via Sony cloud, would they allow it. Or vice versa.
Apple doesn't allow cloud game streaming subscription services from anybody.
Is Stadia available on Xbox or PlayStation? Is PlayStation Now or xCloud available on each other’s platforms?
And the rules are intended to protect the platform.
I don’t want app-stores wihin the app-store or a game-store within the app-store.
If Apple allow this then we will just get more and more lower quality online only streamed “apps” so the developer lists the shell app for free while taking all the proceeds without giving Apple anything.
Apple rules protect the platform and ensure it’s long-term survival.
But then Microsoft wouldn’t get to piggyback all of Apple’s investment and efforts for nothing would they?
Microsoft are lazy and want a free ride.
Microsoft (and all the other whingers that want a free ride from Apple) should be ashamed of themselves.
Apple rules are pro-consumer because they ensure safety, privacy and more importantly long-term success of the eco-system.
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. 2-in-1s, or at least detachables with keyboard and trackpad devices as well as support built into the OS. Multi-platform cloud-based subscription services like Apple Music and Apple TV+. All of these things were to some degree mocked and panned by Apple as bad ideas and bad design - the best stylus is the finger! - only to be quietly adopted later. My favorite was when Apple made the stunning claim: "We switched from LCD to OLED when OLED technology advanced to when it was good enough to use" when OLED use was so widespread - hence proven - that it was regularly used had been in CHEAP phones and tablets made by multiple manufacturers for years by then, and pretty much the only company still using LCD for their better devices (other than Apple) was LG (because they made them).
So yes, there are times when Apple stands against the tide of history and is proven right. But there are also plenty of times that Apple stands against the tide of history and is proven wrong. Apple isn't some preternatural being with the gift of foresight. They are just a company who is as likely to be wrong or right as any other. Sure, their "wait and see" approach may make them less likely to commit the sort of obvious blunders that Google is infamous for and Microsoft made under Ballmer (then again the wait and see approach before coming out with their mobile product failed Microsoft badly because Android was firmly established as the iOS competitor for consumers and developers by the time Windows Phone finally came out ... and even after waiting all that time it was still a terrible product with little first or third party app support and a recycled Zune Player UX/UI ... its purpose was to achieve consistency with their desktop Metro UI, but the phone didn't actually interact with the Windows 8 desktop in any way and PC users hated the WIndows 8 UI too!) but with the ideas that actually do work, a lot of companies make a ton of money by getting their good products to market first.
If they allow game-store apps then they will end up with filth ridden games like on Steam. Not cool.
There’s a place for that, it’s outside the app-store, it’s called the web / web-apps.
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.
Microsoft failed at its own Mobile OS. It now wants to circumvent iOS and would Android but for the fact Android is a shit show and it already allows circumvention as a substitute for exploiting to hundreds of billions in information adverts and third party targeted ad selling which compromises all personal privacy--ala Facebook and Google. Microsoft is happy to capitalize on that and ignore the privacy concerns. Its sole focus is to exploit anywhere it can because it is seeing its peak in potential new revenues streams severely limited by its own decisions over the past decade.
Apple with it's well thought out ecosystem adds new markets when it feels the cross pollination is well tested, extends the vertical services and keeps expanding and offering quality products/services without selling out their user base personal information to the Government or third parties. The vast majority of profits in the entire computing industry for mobile goes through Apple.
Microsoft and Google want that to end. They cry foul and play bedfellows while they continue to syphon information from their customers in exchange for a perceived short-term `freedom' that for the life of me is nothing more than a slow dependency on all information going through them both.
Apple has no interest in monetizing on your personal shopping needs, your addictions, your habits, your rituals, etc. They provide you with an ecosystem of platforms that let you decide how you want to work, be entertained and invest your life's energy. If their approach is not your cup of tea there is always Microsoft through Google, Samsung through Google, Google, or other Android vendors through Google. Their platform is familiar to Microsoft as it is as filled with the similar types of Malware that Microsoft made billions off of providing `security services' while keeping the fundamental designs of its OS broken and available for exploit. Android does the same under Google.
Apple pays bounties for improved security testing [exploits] and people fall silent. Before, they were inundated with whining that not all security is flawless and all their services are bug free. By comparison it's just assumed Android is a maze of hacks and broken services, but open for you to tinker on--thus perceived freedom.
You want your games streamed then use the Web interface, Microsoft/Google and stop whining that you aren't the creator of Apple's Ecosystem you so enviously wish you owned.
Steve Jobs won. Check mate.