linuxplatform

macplusplus said:

Why would Apple leave that game streaming thing to Google or Microsoft while they can do it better than both? 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.

Facepalm. Apple Silicon has absolutely positively nothing to do with streaming. Apple Silicon is hardware. Streaming is software as a service which is designed by nature to be inherently hardware agnostic.

Being able to offer video game streaming requires the very best cloud infrastructure, architecture and development. Apple has none of those. Instead, for years after Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Google Play Movies and TV etc. existed, Apple only offered limited video streaming ability through iTunes. Apple Music was their first legit streaming app and they didn't even develop it ... they bought Beats and repurposed it. 

To give you an idea of how far behind Apple is on this, Google is offering Stadia and Microsoft is offering xCloud using their own cloud platforms - Azure and Google Cloud Platform - that have existed for ages (GCP since 2008, Azure since 2010). Nvidia is partnering with AWS to offer GeForce Now, sure, but it features their own cloud data center and virtualization hardware platform - Nvidia Grid - that they sell to Google and others. You should really check it out ... Nvidia GRID offers virtualized PCs, GPUs and applications. Where xCloud and Stadia are examples of software-as-a-service, Nvidia GRID is infrastructure as a service.

By contrast ... Apple doesn't even host or manage their own iCloud. Instead, iCloud is a product that relies on cloud services provided by Amazon (AWS) and Google (Google Cloud Platform). So does Apple Music and Apple TV+ by the way. If Apple had to rely on their own expertise or resources to pull off either, they would have no chance. And no, they aren't in the cloud hardware game with infrastructure as a service products - or even generic data center computing, storage or networking resources - either. There are some Apple advocates in the tech media - including a couple of articles I read a few months ago - that if Apple Silicon outperforms Intel hardware by a large enough margin, that would allow them to enter the cloud/data center hardware market. But what the writer doesn't realize is that the cloud's needs and Apple's offerings are the opposite. The cloud needs cheap, general purpose hardware and Apple only supplies expensive, specialized hardware. So given the choice between a faster option that costs $500,000 and you can only deploy on it what Apple allows, a data center will buy two alternatives that are slower but cost $350,000 and allows them to put whatever they want on it whenever they need it, and do so without giving it half a second's thought. 

And that is presuming that Apple is capable of building server-class ARM chips that are capable of outperforming Ampere and other ARM server vendors. That is, er, presuming a lot. Beating the Qualcomm Snapdragon/Samsung Exynos mobile chips and beating the ARM chips that already power the fastest supercomputer in the world are two very different things.

Xed said:

linuxplatform said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Honest question because I haven’t been keeping up.

Is Stadia available on Xbox or PlayStation? Is PlayStation Now or xCloud available on each other’s platforms?

Ugh. Not this again.

1. Microsoft stated that iOS was the only general purpose operating system where video game streaming apps like this are not supported. XBox is not a general purpose operating system or platform. It is an appliance that runs video games. It is more similar to the original iPod or the first generation Apple TV appliances - designed for playing music in the former and streaming from a few preloaded apps in the latter - than iOS, iPadOS, Android, ChromeOS, Windows Desktop, Windows Server or desktop/server Linux. (Facepalm)

2. That being said, Microsoft does allow EA Access, a competing video game subscription streaming app on XBox.

3. That also being said, Microsoft would absolutely 100 love a subscription service for Playstation games on XBox. They would approve it in a heartbeat. The only issue is that Sony doesn't want to do it for their own competitive purposes.

While I don't agree with Apple's position, that's a really pathetic argument.

Pathetic how?
I explained Microsoft's argument, which is true.

I pointed out that Microsoft allows services similar to xCloud on XBox like EA's, which is true.

And I pointed out that since Japanese game developers avoid XBox like the plague and as a result XBox sales are horrible in Asia, Microsoft would LOVE for a PlayStation streaming service to get the JRPG (for example) games that they lack and actually be able to move more than a couple million XBoxes a year in Asia as a result but the only reason why it doesn't happen is that Sony being a hardware company like Apple would much prefer you buy their PlayStation hardware than buy XBox hardware and subscribe to their streaming service, which is also true.

And I did so in response to a direct "question" that was framed to defend Apple's position. (Made by someone wanting to expose Microsoft as this hateful duplicitious hypocrite, had no idea that Microsoft actually does allow a similar service on XBox even though it is not even a general purpose operating system, and got mad and bashed me as a troll when I called him on it.)

So again, what was pathetic about it?

Marvin said:

velasarius said:

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.

These kind of game streaming apps have been available on Android for years and haven't caused a shift from native, they tend to serve different categories of games and they tend to shut down after a while because players get a better experience from native games so it's not sustainable to run the servers to serve so few paying users. 
https://www.ccn.com/fortnite-google-stadia-burn/

Due to the limited appeal, Apple not allowing it doesn't affect many people but it reinforces people's negative perceptions of their control over access to apps to decide for themselves. I don't think Apple would see any harm by allowing these game streaming apps on the store. They allow Microsoft's Remote Desktop app on iOS:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/remote-desktop-mobile/id714464092

If Microsoft setup a Windows server that anyone could access through Remote Desktop, I assume they'd be able to connect to XCloud through that like a stream within a stream. 
Playstation Now is one of the top streaming services, has been around for years and streams Playstation games to PC and console and it says here it has 2.2m users:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/19/21263492/sony-playstation-subscribers-active-users-ps4-subscription

That's less than 3% of gamers on one of the most popular streaming services. There's nothing to lose from allowing game streaming and nothing to lose from not allowing them. It'll be possible to do it via the browser anyway as long as the browser offers controller support. If Safari doesn't, Chrome etc on iOS should be able to.

There are "issues" with this. 

0. The remote desktop model that Apple accepts is not in the interests of Microsoft, Google, Nvidia or Amazon (who will launch a game streaming service next year) which is to attract more companies and users to their cloud services. Just as it took video games to shift desktop computing from being a subculture dominated by niche industries and professions to going mainstream, companies that provide cloud software services - Microsoft, Google, Amazon - and who make hardware for the cloud data centers - Amazon - have a vested interest in getting more companies, programmers and consumers to bypass current hardware-centered solutions for cloud ones. Quite naturally companies whose profits rely on consumers continually upgrading expensive hardware such as Apple are going to have the opposite goal. If there are enough great cloud-based apps to do everything you need, there is no need to invest in an $800 iPhone or iPad based on their superiority in executing these mobile apps on the local hardware. A $200 5G-enabled Android phone - which will start to roll out in September and will be commonplace next year - or $250 Wi-Fi 6 Android tablet $250 Chromebook will be just as good. Note that Samsung is dealing with this by promoting their devices as being the best ones at accessing Google and Microsoft services by offering deep integration with the former and software exlusives with the latter and form factors like foldables/bendables (which Microsoft will offer their own next month and Google next year) to take advantage. You should already imagine in your head Stadia or xCloud running in split screen mode with the game on the bigger screen and the camera/chat/stats/health meters on the smaller one because it is definitely coming.

1. Stadia's struggles SHOULD NOT be an indictment on the potential of streaming. Let's just say that Google did a terrible job and came out with a highly questionable product. Stadia would have required cutting edge/bleeding edge innovation in technology, business modeling and management to work. Instead Google hired a couple of former executives from Ubisoft that haven't had a prominent presence in the gaming mainstream - instead of someone from Fortnite, Minecraft or even the people behind the Nintendo Switch - and Stadia initially launched with expensive controllers connected to a special edition Chromecast. Add to that their tiny library consisting almost exclusively of 5-10 year old console or Steam titles that you had to purchase a second time. 

2. PlayStation Now only has 2.2 million subscribers but it is not available on mobile. It is only available on PC and on PlayStation. Also, its business model is specifically designed to complement the PlayStation. Meaning that it is only really desirable if you own a PlayStation and want to play games while you don't have access to it. Google Stadia is explicitly for people who want to play AAA games but don't want to buy a console or gaming rig. As for xCloud, they are taking a middle path. They don't want to make it essentially worthless if you don't have an XBox - like the PlayStation service - and they don't want to replace the XBox or even necessarily your Windows gaming rig either (like Stadia). Instead, it is A) a service for existing XBox subscribers which has 65 million monthly active users - funny. you didn't mention that when you were mocking PlayStation and Stadia - and as a gateway for people who currently game primarily on other platforms - including mobile - to try their games and maybe get an XBox down the line.

3. What you really should be paying attention to here is Amazon. First off, they don't have an existing video game console empire to protect like Microsoft and Sony. They are also an actual business that sells products to consumers, unlike Google, who comes out with absolutely ridiculous products like an Android Wear watch with no physical button, no apps, no Wi-Fi connectivity, whose screen was unusable in direct sunlight and could only last 12-18 hours of moderate use before the battery died, and whose only use was to send voice search commands to your phone over Bluetooth (requiring you to access the phone to view the results of the search). Or the Nexus Player: 1 GB of RAM, no Ethernet, a very hard to get to mini-USB 2.0 as the only port, non-standard CPU, 8 GB of storage ... for the low price of $99. Or their original Chromebook Pixel ... $1300 and remember it was released long before Chromebooks supported Android or Linux. Or their early Pixel phones after they stopped partnering with LG and HTC ... flagship prices for devices with old CPUs, old camera designs, tiny batteries and not enough RAM because "software optimizations were going to maximize the hardware." Like Google, Amazon's product is going to be a full court press to get people to give up their consoles and gaming rigs. But like Microsoft, Amazon's product is actually going to be a good one with an actual content library that doesn't require you to spend $60 to repurchase a game that you bought on Steam 6 years ago. 

So please revisit this comment a year from now. See how many people are using xCloud and Amazon as opposed to a product designed specifically not to compete with PlayStation hardware (PSN) and a product that had no real design at all from a company whose thing isn't designing and selling products in the first place (Stadia). And. yes, by then 5G on mobile devices and home mesh Wi-Fi 6 setups will be more widely available - you can buy Nest from Google and eero from Amazon for the latter, and Microsoft is partnering with TMobile to push xCloud for the former - to address the "lag" that has never bothered anyone in my household who uses Stadia (which despite having a terrible business model still fundamentally works ... i repurchased some of the cheaper Steam games to be played on Chromebooks and Android phones when on the go and it works fine ... it suits the needs of certain people in my household who have outgrown Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, Angry Birds and other mobile titles).

tmay said:

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.

This is just wrong. First off, I use Stadia - on my Samsung phone, the browser on my MacBook and the browser on my Chromebook - and have experienced no more lag than I have on Steam or Nintendo Switch. (And less lag than on the Wii U). Go on various sites and read comments and blogs from people who have used Stadia and they will tell you the same. 

Second, as a user of Android devices, the idea that the services that come to Android first are terrible until Apple comes along and makes them good ... is fiction. Even if you agree with the very debatable idea that Apple's implementations of Android ideas are better that doesn't change the fact that those features worked capably for hundreds of millions of users for years on Android, and as a result constituted a real benefit for the owners of these devices.

Feel free to defend Apple's approach. But don't make up falsehoods while doing so. All that does is weaken's Apple's case.

Gaby said:

And rich corporations that publicly complain like petulant and calculated children about another business not bending over backward to allow them to piggyback on their successes, well again they have free agency to put their money where their mouth is, and create their own platforms and hardware to compete. 

I presume that you have the same view when Apple attacks other companies? Which is not uncommon at all by the way.