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.
So it sounds like Apple could very make a reasonable case, based just on your arguments, that they aren't very good at games, and certainly aren't very interested in games, so they actually don't want to get more involved in games than they are, hence no game streaming.
And yet, here we are, Apple holding a massive untapped goldmine of potential users, and the gaming industry, principally MS, crying because they can't pillage it, right now!
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
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.
I think you are comparing two different realms regarding GPUs, console and mobile. Apple has no claims regarding console gaming, in contrast they do claim mobile gaming and they have fairly succeeded on that, making available many games that deserve the label "console quality" on mobile. Besides, what is the point of emphasizing GDDR6 GPUs while most monitors do not exceed 1080p logical resolution?
Porting a game may take one year or two but the outcome of that is nothing more than the limitation put on the number and size of the game studios that can achieve the porting. Actually only big game studios can do that, indies lacking finances from their publishers. The result is a fair number of mainstream games available on the Mac, a last one being Borderlands 3 for example.
I share your enthusiasm regarding streaming, that was the whole point of my very first post. Simply I believe that Apple can do that much better than MS or Google since they own the silicon and they provide much powerful mobile and desktop devices with Metal. Let's see what will happen after the transition to Apple Silicon is complete within two years...
"But what if it’s not Apple being a dick about money? What if it’s Apple being a dick about control?
That’s not cold and dry — that’s a goddamn sizzling hot juicy steak of a story. That’s personal. For one thing it would explain the pissy, petulant tone of Microsoft’s statement. Maybe Microsoft went into this whole endeavor gearing up for a knockdown drag-out knife-fight negotiation about how exactly to split the money, and Apple just went stone cold Michael Corleone on them: “You can have our answer now, if you like. Our offer is this: nothing. Not even the 30 percent fee for the gaming subscription, which we would appreciate if you put up your ass.” The idea being, in this scenario, that Apple has something Microsoft needs, Microsoft has nothing to offer in return that Apple wants, and so Microsoft just has to sit there grooving on it, stuck with a premium paid subscription service that’s only available on the low-rent mobile platform where people don’t pay for things.
Apple is clearly being a dick to Microsoft about something here, and if it’s platform control not money, well by god at least there’s some delicious poetic justice at play. That’d be a veritable vintage bottle of wine being uncorked. Not having any control over the world’s most lucrative computing platform and wanting something from the company that does — and which has a real taste for exerting its dictatorial control over said platform in mercurial fashion — would fucking suck, wouldn’t it?"
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
@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.
i didn't say amazon was worse, nor was my intent to compar them directly. It was an analogy as it's obvious the posters here do not own a store nor invented anything, so analogies help them understand.
Here's another analogy that hits close to home.
How would you feel if the government mandated that your neighbors can use your property for yard sales. You get ZERO percent. The idea is, because you paid for your home you should be able to spread your accomplishments with others. Fair?
"I'm not even sure Apple is being uncompetitive in this case." Apple wasn't even gonna allow 3rd party apps when they invented iPhone. That would have been their choice. Do you really think if App Store was not successful, that the government and corporations would be telling Apple what to do with their business?
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.
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.
So it sounds like Apple could very make a reasonable case, based just on your arguments, that they aren't very good at games, and certainly aren't very interested in games, so they actually don't want to get more involved in games than they are, hence no game streaming.
And yet, here we are, Apple holding a massive untapped goldmine of potential users, and the gaming industry, principally MS, crying because they can't pillage it, right now!
It's a grey area but iPhone/iPad are absolutely dominating gaming like nothing in history. Except Apple is not developing any games themselves.
At the same time we give Sony credit even though they just sell the hardware. Same as Apple except a few paid exclusives.
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
Could you explain how that would work and how it would be more efficient in terms of bandwidth than the Microsoft cloud streaming model? Would the game logic be processed in the cloud, the Metal instructions sent to the client device for processing / rendering, followed by a return trip to update the game logic engine in the cloud, more processing there, followed by again sending Metal instructions to the client for processing / rendering etc. etc.? It's not clear how you think this would work or how it would be a less brute force approach.
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.
So it sounds like Apple could very make a reasonable case, based just on your arguments, that they aren't very good at games, and certainly aren't very interested in games, so they actually don't want to get more involved in games than they are, hence no game streaming.
And yet, here we are, Apple holding a massive untapped goldmine of potential users, and the gaming industry, principally MS, crying because they can't pillage it, right now!
If they were not interested as you said, Apple Arcade would not exist, neither the gaming capabilities in the Apple TV. IMO, they still have a lot learn and improve.
And I'm not seeing MS crying. They just sent a press release to clarify that xCloud is not available in iOS / iPadOS devices because of Apple, not them. Do you think is a good thing that Apple hold xCloud from their devices? I don't think so. It's not good for MS neither for us, Apple customers.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games... ctt_zh said:
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
Could you explain how that would work and how it would be more efficient in terms of bandwidth than the Microsoft cloud streaming model? Would the game logic be processed in the cloud and the Metal instructions sent to the client device for processing / rendering, followed by a return trip to update the game logic engine in the Cloud, more processing there, followed by again sending Metal instructions to the client for processing / rendering etc. etc.? It's not clear how you think this would work or how it would be a less brute force approach.
Yep, you nailed it. Sending metal instructions to Apple hardware requires less bandwidth than sending streaming video, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. It probably depends on fidelity being equal in both, as a very compressed video stream might not take as much bandwidth as a high fidelity Metal instruction stream. There's also some machine learning / AI benefits to the upload instruction stream, given that there might be a lot of prediction occurring wrt to the player, but that is just speculation on my part.
Apple already figured out how to add a GPU over thunderbolt, which granted has inherently less latency than a long internet path, but it's essentially just a coax cable.
On the other hand, mixed reality would benefit, but at the same time, it should be stated that Apple prefers everything close to the hardware. Advertisers, on the other hand, do not and would love to be able have access to a realtime A/R system.
"But what if it’s not Apple being a dick about money? What if it’s Apple being a dick about control?
That’s not cold and dry — that’s a goddamn sizzling hot juicy steak of a story. That’s personal. For one thing it would explain the pissy, petulant tone of Microsoft’s statement. Maybe Microsoft went into this whole endeavor gearing up for a knockdown drag-out knife-fight negotiation about how exactly to split the money, and Apple just went stone cold Michael Corleone on them: “You can have our answer now, if you like. Our offer is this: nothing. Not even the 30 percent fee for the gaming subscription, which we would appreciate if you put up your ass.” The idea being, in this scenario, that Apple has something Microsoft needs, Microsoft has nothing to offer in return that Apple wants, and so Microsoft just has to sit there grooving on it, stuck with a premium paid subscription service that’s only available on the low-rent mobile platform where people don’t pay for things.
Apple is clearly being a dick to Microsoft about something here, and if it’s platform control not money, well by god at least there’s some delicious poetic justice at play. That’d be a veritable vintage bottle of wine being uncorked. Not having any control over the world’s most lucrative computing platform and wanting something from the company that does — and which has a real taste for exerting its dictatorial control over said platform in mercurial fashion — would fucking suck, wouldn’t it?"
Maybe Gruber don't know that xCloud is part of the GamePass subscription and it's not exclusive to the "low-rent mobile platforms". It also covers XBox consoles and Windows 10 devices. xCloud is just a feature of the service that allows you to play games in mobile devices. And as today, MS is "stuck" +2B Android, +1B Windows users and +50M Xbox consoles. I think that they'll love to have Apple on board. But if it doesn't happen, there still a lot of potential customers between XBox consoles and Windows / Android devices. Looking at the whole picture, looks like us, Apple customers, are the one "stuck" without the opportunity of having a services as good as GamePass / xCloud.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games... ctt_zh said:
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
Could you explain how that would work and how it would be more efficient in terms of bandwidth than the Microsoft cloud streaming model? Would the game logic be processed in the cloud and the Metal instructions sent to the client device for processing / rendering, followed by a return trip to update the game logic engine in the Cloud, more processing there, followed by again sending Metal instructions to the client for processing / rendering etc. etc.? It's not clear how you think this would work or how it would be a less brute force approach.
Yep, you nailed it. Sending metal instructions to Apple hardware requires less bandwidth than sending streaming video, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. It probably depends on fidelity being equal in both, as a very compressed video stream might not take as much bandwidth as a high fidelity Metal instruction stream. There's also some machine learning / AI benefits to the upload instruction stream, given that there might be a lot of prediction occurring wrt to the player, but that is just speculation on my part.
Apple already figured out how to add a GPU over thunderbolt, which granted has inherently less latency than a long internet path, but it's essentially just a coax cable.
On the other hand, mixed reality would benefit, but at the same time, it should be stated that Apple prefers everything close to the hardware. Advertisers, on the other hand, do not and would love to be able have access to a realtime A/R system.
In 5G scenarios, QoE and QoS will potentially make it less important to have lots of on board resources.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games... ctt_zh said:
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
Could you explain how that would work and how it would be more efficient in terms of bandwidth than the Microsoft cloud streaming model? Would the game logic be processed in the cloud and the Metal instructions sent to the client device for processing / rendering, followed by a return trip to update the game logic engine in the Cloud, more processing there, followed by again sending Metal instructions to the client for processing / rendering etc. etc.? It's not clear how you think this would work or how it would be a less brute force approach.
Yep, you nailed it. Sending metal instructions to Apple hardware requires less bandwidth than sending streaming video, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. It probably depends on fidelity being equal in both, as a very compressed video stream might not take as much bandwidth as a high fidelity Metal instruction stream. There's also some machine learning / AI benefits to the upload instruction stream, given that there might be a lot of prediction occurring wrt to the player, but that is just speculation on my part.
Apple already figured out how to add a GPU over thunderbolt, which granted has inherently less latency than a long internet path, but it's essentially just a coax cable.
On the other hand, mixed reality would benefit, but at the same time, it should be stated that Apple prefers everything close to the hardware. Advertisers, on the other hand, do not and would love to be able have access to a realtime A/R system.
In 5G scenarios, QoE and QoS will potentially make it less important to have lots of on board resources.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games...
And MS is better than both, Apple and Google in gaming. I think we can agree in that...
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games... ctt_zh said:
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.
I'll add EPIC just secure nearly $2 Billion in financing this week thus they plan to have an IPO. Let them build their streaming gaming service to compete and draw people to them, and if they financially see a value in Apple Gaming they can port some games to it.
If Apple were going to create a game streaming system, they would be building an ASi based backend passing Metal instructions to the client device. MS is fine with brute force video streams so that developers don't actually have to do anything, but what a waste of bandwidth.
Could you explain how that would work and how it would be more efficient in terms of bandwidth than the Microsoft cloud streaming model? Would the game logic be processed in the cloud and the Metal instructions sent to the client device for processing / rendering, followed by a return trip to update the game logic engine in the Cloud, more processing there, followed by again sending Metal instructions to the client for processing / rendering etc. etc.? It's not clear how you think this would work or how it would be a less brute force approach.
Yep, you nailed it. Sending metal instructions to Apple hardware requires less bandwidth than sending streaming video, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. It probably depends on fidelity being equal in both, as a very compressed video stream might not take as much bandwidth as a high fidelity Metal instruction stream. There's also some machine learning / AI benefits to the upload instruction stream, given that there might be a lot of prediction occurring wrt to the player, but that is just speculation on my part.
Apple already figured out how to add a GPU over thunderbolt, which granted has inherently less latency than a long internet path, but it's essentially just a coax cable.
On the other hand, mixed reality would benefit, but at the same time, it should be stated that Apple prefers everything close to the hardware. Advertisers, on the other hand, do not and would love to be able have access to a realtime A/R system.
In 5G scenarios, QoE and QoS will potentially make it less important to have lots of on board resources.
But Apple, as I noted, already has the infrastructure in its iPhones to provide high quality rendering at high frame rate, and high resolution, and of note, they will have mmwave 5G this fall. Why would they not base streaming on Metal it if they were going to be creating a streaming game system for iPhone specifically?
The real question is how granular would the server farms be to support streaming games in Metal at lowest latency? 5G doesn't solve the backhaul latency, only the transaction latency on a 5G network. In essence, to cut down latency, you need to have the server as close to the client as possible, possibly in the in the same community.
1 milisecond would be the minimum time required up and down to the cloud for a server 90 miles distant. Then you have a frame rate of 16 ms for 60 fps, and your transaction latency in the 5G network. The balance of that is the time you have to calculate and output a single frame. 360 miles would be 4 milliseconds.
Maybe that is 10 milliseconds maximum, for the backend to create a single frame and output it to the client 360 miles away. Still, I expect that Metal could reduce the amount of bandwidth significantly, but as I'm not a developer, I don't know how significant those savings would be.
Needless to state, Apple would have a technical advantage over MS, et al, if they created a streaming game platform based on Metal, and a backend based on ASi.
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).
I'm a hardware and software user, and my distaste for financials is well known as they are a profound waste of time and effort. I would rather feed my leg to a wood chipper with it still attached, than write what you're asking for, here.
Assuming your question is legitimate, and not some kind of "aha, gotcha!" that is too subtle for me to process properly, the long and the short of it is, Apple pays what it is required to pay across the world. It makes legal arrangements with governments, and utilizes the tax laws that are already written to benefit large companies to their advantage.
Want Apple to pay X units of currency in Y country? Fix the tax laws in Y country so they have to, and see what happens.
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.
Is Google really better at it, or are you fucking bullshitting us.
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
Did you read my post? I said "as today, Google and MS are doing better than Apple in gaming, specifically when talking about cloud gaming". Did you noticed when I said "specifically when talking about cloud gaming". As bad as Google is / could be with Stadia, still better than Apple when talking about cloud gaming, since they don't have it. Apple is doing very good as a mobile gaming platform. A part from that, they are awful. Just look at the status of gaming in macOS and Apple TV, a device they try to push as a gaming console.
And I stated that Apple is better at games...
And MS is better than both, Apple and Google in gaming. I think we can agree in that...
I should hope so.
They been behind the Xbox for 20 years, and PC gaming for far longer than that.
I could make an argument the Apple doesn't want to enter the gaming space occupied by the MS's "massive, and dominating presence".
Comments
And yet, here we are, Apple holding a massive untapped goldmine of potential users, and the gaming industry, principally MS, crying because they can't pillage it, right now!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrychesbrough/2020/03/03/dont-play-games-with-platformsa-lesson-for-google-stadia/#691214147f24
"The dominance of the major tech firms is very much in the news these days. Yet even mighty organizations sometimes make mistakes that we all can learn from. One such mistake may be the Google launch of Stadia, an online platform for streaming interactive games. Instead of buying games and special gaming hardware, Stadia users can simply pay a fee (reportedly $130 per year) and play with their internet connection and their computer. Yet take-up of Stadia to date has been quite meager, and very few third party game developers currently have games available on the platform. Is Stadia a mistake?"
...
"But the comments of third party game developers towards Stadia are revealing, and show that Google appears to be in the process of making a big mistake by underinvesting in Stadia. Developers charge that Google is offering little or no incentive for them to invest in developing games for the Stadia platform.[3] Since Stadia is brand new, and hasn’t yet been widely adopted, there isn’t much market pull for the platform. And Google has withdrawn from other initiatives in the past when the market for these offerings turned out to be disappointing (e.g., Google Hangouts, Google Health, Google Glass). So gaming companies don’t want to be investing, just when Google decides to head for the door."
What the fuck.
There are a number of articles that reflect the same point, that Stadia uptake is slow, even after Google added a free tier for two months.
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/72266/apple-arcade-12-million-subscribers-prediction/
Apple Arcade estimated to have 12 million subscribers by end of 2020.
Definitely looks like Apple is better at games than Google is...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(API)
Scroll to Adoption.
I think you are comparing two different realms regarding GPUs, console and mobile. Apple has no claims regarding console gaming, in contrast they do claim mobile gaming and they have fairly succeeded on that, making available many games that deserve the label "console quality" on mobile. Besides, what is the point of emphasizing GDDR6 GPUs while most monitors do not exceed 1080p logical resolution?
Porting a game may take one year or two but the outcome of that is nothing more than the limitation put on the number and size of the game studios that can achieve the porting. Actually only big game studios can do that, indies lacking finances from their publishers. The result is a fair number of mainstream games available on the Mac, a last one being Borderlands 3 for example.
I share your enthusiasm regarding streaming, that was the whole point of my very first post. Simply I believe that Apple can do that much better than MS or Google since they own the silicon and they provide much powerful mobile and desktop devices with Metal. Let's see what will happen after the transition to Apple Silicon is complete within two years...
https://daringfireball.net/2020/08/applespeak_to_english_xbox_game_pass
"But what if it’s not Apple being a dick about money? What if it’s Apple being a dick about control?
That’s not cold and dry — that’s a goddamn sizzling hot juicy steak of a story. That’s personal. For one thing it would explain the pissy, petulant tone of Microsoft’s statement. Maybe Microsoft went into this whole endeavor gearing up for a knockdown drag-out knife-fight negotiation about how exactly to split the money, and Apple just went stone cold Michael Corleone on them: “You can have our answer now, if you like. Our offer is this: nothing. Not even the 30 percent fee for the gaming subscription, which we would appreciate if you put up your ass.” The idea being, in this scenario, that Apple has something Microsoft needs, Microsoft has nothing to offer in return that Apple wants, and so Microsoft just has to sit there grooving on it, stuck with a premium paid subscription service that’s only available on the low-rent mobile platform where people don’t pay for things.
Apple is clearly being a dick to Microsoft about something here, and if it’s platform control not money, well by god at least there’s some delicious poetic justice at play. That’d be a veritable vintage bottle of wine being uncorked. Not having any control over the world’s most lucrative computing platform and wanting something from the company that does — and which has a real taste for exerting its dictatorial control over said platform in mercurial fashion — would fucking suck, wouldn’t it?"
i didn't say amazon was worse, nor was my intent to compar them directly. It was an analogy as it's obvious the posters here do not own a store nor invented anything, so analogies help them understand.
Here's another analogy that hits close to home.
How would you feel if the government mandated that your neighbors can use your property for yard sales. You get ZERO percent. The idea is, because you paid for your home you should be able to spread your accomplishments with others. Fair?
"I'm not even sure Apple is being uncompetitive in this case."
Apple wasn't even gonna allow 3rd party apps when they invented iPhone. That would have been their choice. Do you really think if App Store was not successful, that the government and corporations would be telling Apple what to do with their business?
You both get a trophy.
It's a grey area but iPhone/iPad are absolutely dominating gaming like nothing in history. Except Apple is not developing any games themselves.
At the same time we give Sony credit even though they just sell the hardware. Same as Apple except a few paid exclusives.
And I'm not seeing MS crying. They just sent a press release to clarify that xCloud is not available in iOS / iPadOS devices because of Apple, not them. Do you think is a good thing that Apple hold xCloud from their devices? I don't think so. It's not good for MS neither for us, Apple customers.
ctt_zh said: Yep, you nailed it. Sending metal instructions to Apple hardware requires less bandwidth than sending streaming video, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. It probably depends on fidelity being equal in both, as a very compressed video stream might not take as much bandwidth as a high fidelity Metal instruction stream. There's also some machine learning / AI benefits to the upload instruction stream, given that there might be a lot of prediction occurring wrt to the player, but that is just speculation on my part.
Apple already figured out how to add a GPU over thunderbolt, which granted has inherently less latency than a long internet path, but it's essentially just a coax cable.
On the other hand, mixed reality would benefit, but at the same time, it should be stated that Apple prefers everything close to the hardware. Advertisers, on the other hand, do not and would love to be able have access to a realtime A/R system.
The real question is how granular would the server farms be to support streaming games in Metal at lowest latency? 5G doesn't solve the backhaul latency, only the transaction latency on a 5G network. In essence, to cut down latency, you need to have the server as close to the client as possible, possibly in the in the same community.
1 milisecond would be the minimum time required up and down to the cloud for a server 90 miles distant. Then you have a frame rate of 16 ms for 60 fps, and your transaction latency in the 5G network. The balance of that is the time you have to calculate and output a single frame. 360 miles would be 4 milliseconds.
Maybe that is 10 milliseconds maximum, for the backend to create a single frame and output it to the client 360 miles away. Still, I expect that Metal could reduce the amount of bandwidth significantly, but as I'm not a developer, I don't know how significant those savings would be.
Needless to state, Apple would have a technical advantage over MS, et al, if they created a streaming game platform based on Metal, and a backend based on ASi.
Assuming your question is legitimate, and not some kind of "aha, gotcha!" that is too subtle for me to process properly, the long and the short of it is, Apple pays what it is required to pay across the world. It makes legal arrangements with governments, and utilizes the tax laws that are already written to benefit large companies to their advantage.
Want Apple to pay X units of currency in Y country? Fix the tax laws in Y country so they have to, and see what happens.
They been behind the Xbox for 20 years, and PC gaming for far longer than that.
I could make an argument the Apple doesn't want to enter the gaming space occupied by the MS's "massive, and dominating presence".