The sooner Amazon and Microsoft bring their streaming game services to iOS devices via PWA the sooner everyone will see that Apple does not prevent people running software on iOS devices that hasn’t been vetted by Apple, isn’t in the app-store and Apple receives zero income from.
The truth about Microsoft is it wants the free-ride on the App Store not the Web. And, Microsoft is doing much to try breaking its way into the App Store and on iPhone for free.
From what I know, MS wouldn't have any issues paying Apple for being in the App Store,
Actually, Microsoft's president Brad Smith stated on July 20, 2020 that the 30% rate was way too high and Apple should be found guilty of being a monopoly:
"[Apple] impose[s] requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created. In some cases they create a very high price per toll - in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper. The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created [by Apple]."
Yes, MS may find in some cases that the 30% is too high, and based in their actions, very different from Epic, they were ready pay the Apple fee for GamePass and Xbox Cloud Gaming. BTW, did you see that he said that it's in some cases? Maybe he is right that there are cases where the 30% is too high.
The statement is nonsensical. Apple's requirements do not "increasingly say" they have "steadfastly said from the beginning." In the above quote Microsoft's president is calling on the US and EU to use anti-trust laws to "destroy everything Apple has created." Microsoft's position is more hypocritical than Epic's, for reasons that should be so obvious I won't mention them here.
I don't think MS being hypocrite as you said. Neither I think MS wants to "destroy everything Apple has created", considering they were ready to pay Apple fees for GamePass / Xbox Cloud Gaming and still developing excellent apps for the App Store. BTW, the I didn't find the "destroy everything that Apple has created" line in the Brad Smith interview. Where did you get that?
You are polite, I'll grant you that. Most people are very hostile on this topic. Thanks for being polite.
The final two words in my quote "[by Apple]" were in brackets because they weren't in Brad's quote but were clearly a reference to "Apple's App Store". It is normal when quoting people to add brackets around words that weren't actually spoken but were clearly implied. I also used brackets in two other locations in that quote including the "[s]". I thought people would understand that brackets are inserted to show minor edits, usually to replace improper pronouns by proper pronouns. I don't think I was out of line by adding "[by Apple]" especially since I put it in brackets. If you don't think it meant that, what do you think it meant? I'm open to different explanations.
I'll grant you that not everyone at Microsoft speaks as harshly against Apple as Brad Smith, but Smith is the president of Microsoft so that should count as something.
I know that part of your post was from Brad Smith. What I did ask specifically is where did Brad Smith said that MS want to "destroy everything that Apple has created". I think he never said that, and I don't that criticizing Apple for charging, in some cases, the 30% fee means that they want to destroy what Apple has created.
I know that part of your post was from Brad Smith. What I did ask specifically is where did Brad Smith said that MS want to "destroy everything that Apple has created". I think he never said that, and I don't that criticizing Apple for charging, in some cases, the 30% fee means that they want to destroy what Apple has created.
I'm not sure why you don't understand that when Brad Smith said these exact words (verbatim):
"The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversationabout the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created"
...that he wasn't talking about the Apple App Store. Can't you see the word "app store" and "antitrust" in the same sentence? I asked you what you think he was talking about if you don't think he was talking about using antitrust law to stop Apple's app store rules. You didn't answer. How is it difficult to see that Brad Smith was attacking the Apple App Store and saying that antitrust laws need to be invoked to stop Apple? On a scale of 1 to 10 for clarity this is about an 8.
EDIT: Upon further reflection I now see that when I wrote the words "destroy everything Apple has created" you thought I was quoting Brad Smith. That's not correct. When I quoted Brad Smith I used the special indented quotation format on the AppleInsider website. And when I wrote "destroy everything Apple has created" that was NOT a Brad Smith quote, that was my own wording paraphrasing what he wrote in the quote, and so I did not indent it as I did the quote from Brad Smith. If you read Brad Smith's quote you will see that's what he was saying. You can see he was calling for antitrust laws to be used against Apple's App Store. He cited the 30% fee earlier in the story as part of the reason.
I used three negatives in one sentence above. I was trying to say that Brad Smith WAS talking about the Apple App Store, even though my three negatives made it come out the opposite way. It's over 4 hours later so I can't edit the post.
I find it interesting that all these comparisons are being made to Microsoft Windows. A better comparison would be Microsoft Xbox which only allows you get get on the console from their store where the charge the developers - surprise surprise - 30%. Same with PlayStation, Google Play store etc.
I think most of the security chain on iOS comes from the sand boxing model, secure boot chain, etc. it would probably pretty hard for sideloaded apps to do serious damage to the device/is/other apps/user so Apple could probably just allow users to do that at their own risk. Bet you 99% of users wouldn’t bother.
As for Epic, it seems pretty perverse not to take out their own app-store code from Fortnite and go back into the App Store until this is litigated. Surely 70% of something (probably tens of millions) is better than 100% of nothing.
I find it interesting that all these comparisons are being made to Microsoft Windows. A better comparison would be Microsoft Xbox which only allows you get get on the console from their store where the charge the developers - surprise surprise - 30%. Same with PlayStation, Google Play store etc.
I think most of the security chain on iOS comes from the sand boxing model, secure boot chain, etc. it would probably pretty hard for sideloaded apps to do serious damage to the device/is/other apps/user so Apple could probably just allow users to do that at their own risk. Bet you 99% of users wouldn’t bother.
As for Epic, it seems pretty perverse not to take out their own app-store code from Fortnite and go back into the App Store until this is litigated. Surely 70% of something (probably tens of millions) is better than 100% of nothing.
As I understand it, the problem is that in order to allow apps to be sideloaded you need to give a third party a heightened access, because while the apps may be sandboxed, the installer can't be. And if the alt app store has heightened access (it might not be root, but it's approaching it), then how do you ensure that the third party uses that access responsibly and installs apps properly.;
It's difficult, and therefore it makes a lot of sense to have a single, trusted source for software which is why it's so infuriating that Apple isn't a better custodian of the app store and more reasonable with their developer relations and fees.
I know that part of your post was from Brad Smith. What I did ask specifically is where did Brad Smith said that MS want to "destroy everything that Apple has created". I think he never said that, and I don't that criticizing Apple for charging, in some cases, the 30% fee means that they want to destroy what Apple has created.
I'm not sure why you don't understand that when Brad Smith said these exact words (verbatim):
"The time has come - whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels - for a much more focused conversationabout the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created"
...that he wasn't talking about the Apple App Store. Can't you see the word "app store" and "antitrust" in the same sentence? I asked you what you think he was talking about if you don't think he was talking about using antitrust law to stop Apple's app store rules. You didn't answer. How is it difficult to see that Brad Smith was attacking the Apple App Store and saying that antitrust laws need to be invoked to stop Apple? On a scale of 1 to 10 for clarity this is about an 8.
EDIT: Upon further reflection I now see that when I wrote the words "destroy everything Apple has created" you thought I was quoting Brad Smith. That's not correct. When I quoted Brad Smith I used the special indented quotation format on the AppleInsider website. And when I wrote "destroy everything Apple has created" that was NOT a Brad Smith quote, that was my own wording paraphrasing what he wrote in the quote, and so I did not indent it as I did the quote from Brad Smith. If you read Brad Smith's quote you will see that's what he was saying. You can see he was calling for antitrust laws to be used against Apple's App Store. He cited the 30% fee earlier in the story as part of the reason.
I read Brad Smith interview, and I don't think he wants Apple App Store destroyed as you said. What he said is that he thinks that in some cases the 30% fee is too high and that government should check on this. That is very different from the "destroy everything Apple has created" you mentioned.
Unlike Epic who is also suing Google and tried to bypass Google Play in the past, Microsoft has no problem paying the 30% fee to Apple. They had no problem investing millions of dollars for over a year on an xCloud beta app that ultimately was not approved.
Quit it with the stupid conspiracy theories. Microsoft has always stated that they were going to release xCloud in phases. Mobile apps at 720p were always going to be the first phase. Windows PC app was always going to be phase 2. Browsers were always going to be phase 3. XBox was always going to be phase 4.
Microsoft stated all this before Amazon announced its Luna service. Amazon is launching Luna on the web and iOS first because they want to prevent Android users from playing it. There is nothing preventing them from releasing it as a PWA on Android or from allowing Chromebooks to run it. They are doing it to spite Google and are even preventing their own Kindle Fire owners from accessing it in the process, though they figure most Fire owners also own Fire TV sticks or can get one for $25 if they want to play the service.
Quit claiming that Microsoft is the same as Epic. If that were true, Microsoft would be paying Google 30% either.
I wish people would understand this: Fortnite's iOS revenue is infinitesimally small versus their iOS Unreal revenue. Epic charges 5% of gross for Unreal usage, and with the majority of Apple Arcade games being Unreal - Unity a rather distant second - Apple's advertising PUBG to spite Epic has provided Epic with a fantastic cashflow.
DO NOT SUPPORT APPLE ARCADE. IT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS EPIC. They're in this together. The only people losing are the consumer.
Comments
...that he wasn't talking about the Apple App Store. Can't you see the word "app store" and "antitrust" in the same sentence? I asked you what you think he was talking about if you don't think he was talking about using antitrust law to stop Apple's app store rules. You didn't answer. How is it difficult to see that Brad Smith was attacking the Apple App Store and saying that antitrust laws need to be invoked to stop Apple? On a scale of 1 to 10 for clarity this is about an 8.
EDIT: Upon further reflection I now see that when I wrote the words "destroy everything Apple has created" you thought I was quoting Brad Smith. That's not correct. When I quoted Brad Smith I used the special indented quotation format on the AppleInsider website. And when I wrote "destroy everything Apple has created" that was NOT a Brad Smith quote, that was my own wording paraphrasing what he wrote in the quote, and so I did not indent it as I did the quote from Brad Smith. If you read Brad Smith's quote you will see that's what he was saying. You can see he was calling for antitrust laws to be used against Apple's App Store. He cited the 30% fee earlier in the story as part of the reason.
I think most of the security chain on iOS comes from the sand boxing model, secure boot chain, etc. it would probably pretty hard for sideloaded apps to do serious damage to the device/is/other apps/user so Apple could probably just allow users to do that at their own risk. Bet you 99% of users wouldn’t bother.
As for Epic, it seems pretty perverse not to take out their own app-store code from Fortnite and go back into the App Store until this is litigated. Surely 70% of something (probably tens of millions) is better than 100% of nothing.
It's difficult, and therefore it makes a lot of sense to have a single, trusted source for software which is why it's so infuriating that Apple isn't a better custodian of the app store and more reasonable with their developer relations and fees.
Quit it with the stupid conspiracy theories. Microsoft has always stated that they were going to release xCloud in phases. Mobile apps at 720p were always going to be the first phase. Windows PC app was always going to be phase 2. Browsers were always going to be phase 3. XBox was always going to be phase 4.
Microsoft stated all this before Amazon announced its Luna service. Amazon is launching Luna on the web and iOS first because they want to prevent Android users from playing it. There is nothing preventing them from releasing it as a PWA on Android or from allowing Chromebooks to run it. They are doing it to spite Google and are even preventing their own Kindle Fire owners from accessing it in the process, though they figure most Fire owners also own Fire TV sticks or can get one for $25 if they want to play the service.
Quit claiming that Microsoft is the same as Epic. If that were true, Microsoft would be paying Google 30% either.
DO NOT SUPPORT APPLE ARCADE. IT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS EPIC. They're in this together. The only people losing are the consumer.