> Basically, Apple wants to be able to review every game that graces an iPhone’s screen, even if it’s streamed from a game server somewhere in the cloud.
Really wondering how Apple can think they need to have that much power. How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too.
And actually, I don't think that'd be too far off. Like what Google has their Safe Browsing list containing links to malware sites, Apple could create their own Apple Internet List, and demand through App Store policies that all browsers implement it or else.
Need has nothing to do with it. They're identifying ways in which people are making money off of the platform and demanding a cut. This is what companies do unless there is competition and/or regulation.
> How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too.
We basically got lucky that the web was invented and well-established long before the iPhone was. If it had been the other way around, I strongly doubt the iPhone would ship with a browser or that they'd be allowed on the App Store.
They don’t actually allow 3rd party web browsers: every browser on iOS has to use WebKit and their JS Engine. The browsers are basically skins for safari
Basically, decide you want to make the maximum possible amount of money and reason backwards to the types of "principles" you'd need to stipulate to justify the policies that maximize your money.
I'm surprised that they bundle a web browser and allow apps like Twitch, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Anyone could say anything through those platforms and Apple's benevolent Content Curation Geniuses could do nothing to intervene!
I guess the reality is that nobody would buy an iPhone if those things didn't work, but game streaming is new enough that Apple can use their large market position to kill them instead of them killing Apple. I guess that's business for you.
I sincerely hope the service providers sue Apple (and win). This is blatant abuse of their market position. Better if the App Store gets broken up into its own independent company.
Look at the Steamlink debacle. That time the excuse was about buying games through the app (even though you can buy games on the main steam app) and not about what content you stream from your computer to your iOS device.
I think apple caving on 3rd party app stores might be the easy regulatory solution for Apple.
As a consumer there is definitely a tangible benefit to having the App Store be safe and consistent. Apple can impose its technical, moral, safety, and design philosophy on every app in its own stores like Disney or Whole Foods might with their retail products.
But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there. Like the new browser entitlement, Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).
There is no anti-competitive measures because there is no singular channel to install an app on an iphone anymore. And then Apple can make their App Store even more tightly controlled because every developer there is there by choice. Apple can cut custom deals to keep Google, Facebook or anyone else there, but Apple has to earn those partnerships like on the Mac App Store
> Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).
What regulation could ever make Apple behave nicely to sub-stores who are eating their lunch? I doubt there would ever be a truly effective way to do that.
Instead, why not just tell Apple to allow side-loading (like basically every other consumer-grade OS has since the history of computers began)? If they want to include a 3rd-party app store in the Apple App Store, that's fine. If they don't, also fine. But I should be able to run whatever programs I want
Apple definitely needs to loosen their guidelines, wanting to review third party games on gaming services is an exact example of a dumb guideline poorly applied.
But allowing third party stores would be terrible for users and developers. Security is a huge issue, but other reasons include:
1) Splitting app search across different stores hurting discoverability.
2) Different payment systems making purchasing more difficult.
3) Different subscription and purchasing rules making it harder for customers to refund purchases or cancel subscriptions, reducing consumer confidence in buying on the platform.
4) Lowered app review standards letting even more spam-ware, malware and fraud-ware on the platform, hurting sales for legit developers.
5) Developers forced to spend more time and money hosting their apps on more stores to maximize their reach.
The security of the platform and frictionless purchase system are Apples primary responsibilities. If they lose control of them then iPhone has little that is better than Android.
> But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there.
I absolutely do not want that to happen. This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. If Hey or ClassPass was relegated to some other app store on iOS, it may as well not exist.
I can’t help but wonder if this is a larger existential debate for Apple than gaming.
Maybe they perceive this as a first step on a path of streaming apps in general? As internet connectivity continues to improve, what’s to stop all apps from simply being streamed? If they allow interactive remote gaming, why not allow us to stream text processors, photo editing apps, etc? How would they make any money off the App Store in a future where all apps are streamed bypassing their system all together?
I’m not advocating for this, just bouncing the ball in an attempt to understand their perspective. Where do you draw the line?
Streaming apps are a huge threat to Apple's current business model. Arguably, the gate to the kingdom had already been thrown wide open years ago with all of the capability that currently exists in the web browsers. It's mostly just a matter of engineering at this point to get around the censors and gatekeepers.
There is probably nothing Apple could do to prevent some determined engineer from building a streaming application framework that targets web instead of native apps for delivery of final server-side rasterized content. Best they could do is start blocking websites by IP/DNS which is arguably immediate grounds for Apple being split up and scattered to the seven winds by the FTC.
Hypothetically, you could develop this framework and build your own app store at myappstore.com. Instead of downloading binary images of applications from this site, it would actually host the application directly as a streaming web experience. For instance, accessing myappstore.com/MySocialMediaApp would be the resource that loads a full-screen server-side-rendered view of that specific application. All clients would just need to store a 256 bit cookie that is used for identifying the session. Everything else could live on the server, including 100% of the client view state. This model also makes it trivial to share application state between users or devices.
This kind of approach should sound like a massive boon to Apple in terms of them having absolute control & visibility, but I think they are just playing the current development ecosystem right now.
> How would they make any money off the App Store in a future where all apps are streamed bypassing their system all together?
Yes I agree, I think this is the answer. Video streaming is allowed since they already lost -- no one wants to download the whole video as an app first because the experience would suck.
That's not true of games...yet. They are scared it will be. As an enthusiast, I'm a little scared too!
Indeed, in the future, any app could be built as a native shell that provides the integration to the OS, then the actual app is streamed from the Cloud.
So, we get a native app that also runs on a server, like a website.
As Microsoft Cloud Gaming (xCloud) and other platforms are proving, there are new markets for this type of apps.
Videos, security, behavior etc wise, are all the same (as long as they use the same codecs). It's the video player code that matters and might have be audited, not each video.
Games and apps are obviously different, as they have dynamic behavior.
I really like iPhones. But I won't ever own one if I can't sideload apps on it. Two simple reasons:
1) I think that only I should decide if I want to run that app. The manufacturer no longer owns the device after selling it to me
2) The corrupt government if my county likes to block apps and Apple does as they ask. One day they'll remove the apps I really need, and it is not acceptable for me.
So game streaming is out, but video streaming is in? I take it they don't want to give up any of that App Store game revenue should game streaming turn out to be viable.
> So game streaming is out, but video streaming is in?
Just what I was thinking. They allow Spotify and they don't insist on reviewing all the songs available. They allow the Netflix and the Google Play Movies app (and the equivalent movie streaming apps from Amazon, PlayStation, Rakuten, etc) without reviewing all the films that can be streamed there.
I suppose interactivity is the 'category difference' there, but what are they protecting the customer from?
> Basically, Apple wants to be able to review every game that graces an iPhone’s screen, even if it’s streamed from a game server somewhere in the cloud.
I don't see how this logic doesn't also apply to Youtube, and other video-streaming apps? I get that it's less "interactive", but it's still content that Apple has "not reviewed".
Apple is hypocritical. They block apps for various reasons, may it be gambling, nudity, not paying the App Store fee on transactions, not including Apple's authentication provider, or other stuff. But they include a web browser which can access all of this forbidden content.
As a German this American prudery is especially disturbing. We got nudity (not sexual acts) on public daytime television...
I really don't see the hypocrisy in this one. Bypassing the App Store not via Safari will get you kicked off the platform no matter the technical means you use to accomplish it.
The XCloud streaming service has several hundred games.
Youtube has millions of individual videos.
There’s an obvious difference in scale that makes reviewing one possible and the other not. Apple could never even propose to have each individual YouTube video reviewed by their App Store.
This is bad for Apple’s customers. I don’t think they’ll find it’s too their advantage to keep pushing this, or it will become a clear advantage for android: you can play all your games on android, and not on Apple.
Cloud gaming may be comparatively niche compared to the app market as a whole, but what other use cases will thus extend to? Individual app developers need Apple, but Apple needs apps in aggregate.
I m getting sick and tired of corporate trade wars on top of national trade wars, and the people here who always evangelize these platforms to developers. I hope these platforms die a horrible death and we return to neutral open (and full of spam) protocols.
I hope the excellent open source Moonlight doesn’t get banned. It reverse engineered the Nvidia Shield (now a TV box a la Roku) features and allows really high quality low latency gaming from devices if you have an nvidia video card. What’s even better is it works without any outside internet required, just your LAN, which is a rare thing these days.
Nope. This is about limiting apps being distributed by an alternative App Store where the content cannot be reviewed that it meets non-technical Apple guidelines. Remote Screen Control apps and things like Steam Link are different because the content comes from the user's hardware and data, not from the creator of the app.
I can stream games from my PC to my Apple TV, but the second the game comes from the cloud it's not ok? Ok apple. I hope some laws are written that force your hand.
Not surprised. Apple will do worse things 6 months from now. And I hate saying that I suspect their customers will just take it. They were ok with a “computer” that has everything glued on. Monopolistic Apps restrictions is nothing compared to that.
So Apple claims that Netflix is okay but that new Microsoft service is not, because the former one is a video streaming platform while the latter is a interactive game streaming platform.
Now Apple, please explain me this: Netflix is also a interactive game streaming platform. They have Bandersnatch, Interactive Carmen Sandiego, Interactive Puss in Boots, the Interactive Bear Grylls You vs Wild, and freaking Minecraft Story Mode which for all intents and purposes is a fully real game.
Netflix is a game streaming service, and it's on the app store!
Apple is massively inconsistent here, and has some major explaining to do!
The problem comes when someone likes 95% of what the Apple ecosystem offers but only 40% of the Android ecosystem. It’s not that easy to say “stop using them” if the person believes the competition is even worse.
[+] [-] mimsee|5 years ago|reply
Really wondering how Apple can think they need to have that much power. How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too.
And actually, I don't think that'd be too far off. Like what Google has their Safe Browsing list containing links to malware sites, Apple could create their own Apple Internet List, and demand through App Store policies that all browsers implement it or else.
[+] [-] nostromo|5 years ago|reply
This reasoning is beyond absurd.
[+] [-] blihp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|5 years ago|reply
We basically got lucky that the web was invented and well-established long before the iPhone was. If it had been the other way around, I strongly doubt the iPhone would ship with a browser or that they'd be allowed on the App Store.
[+] [-] fiddlerwoaroof|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gene91|5 years ago|reply
They do by requiring that all apps (including Chrome) to use the Safari WebKit engine provided by the OS.
They actually justifies it by pointing to parental control and safe browsing.
[+] [-] wvenable|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssss11|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinclift|5 years ago|reply
Apple's approach for many years (at least) has been screaming "control freak", so it's completely in character.
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|5 years ago|reply
I guess the reality is that nobody would buy an iPhone if those things didn't work, but game streaming is new enough that Apple can use their large market position to kill them instead of them killing Apple. I guess that's business for you.
[+] [-] smilekzs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knolan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianozen|5 years ago|reply
As a consumer there is definitely a tangible benefit to having the App Store be safe and consistent. Apple can impose its technical, moral, safety, and design philosophy on every app in its own stores like Disney or Whole Foods might with their retail products.
But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there. Like the new browser entitlement, Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).
There is no anti-competitive measures because there is no singular channel to install an app on an iphone anymore. And then Apple can make their App Store even more tightly controlled because every developer there is there by choice. Apple can cut custom deals to keep Google, Facebook or anyone else there, but Apple has to earn those partnerships like on the Mac App Store
[+] [-] henryfjordan|5 years ago|reply
What regulation could ever make Apple behave nicely to sub-stores who are eating their lunch? I doubt there would ever be a truly effective way to do that.
Instead, why not just tell Apple to allow side-loading (like basically every other consumer-grade OS has since the history of computers began)? If they want to include a 3rd-party app store in the Apple App Store, that's fine. If they don't, also fine. But I should be able to run whatever programs I want
[+] [-] valuearb|5 years ago|reply
But allowing third party stores would be terrible for users and developers. Security is a huge issue, but other reasons include:
1) Splitting app search across different stores hurting discoverability.
2) Different payment systems making purchasing more difficult.
3) Different subscription and purchasing rules making it harder for customers to refund purchases or cancel subscriptions, reducing consumer confidence in buying on the platform.
4) Lowered app review standards letting even more spam-ware, malware and fraud-ware on the platform, hurting sales for legit developers.
5) Developers forced to spend more time and money hosting their apps on more stores to maximize their reach.
The security of the platform and frictionless purchase system are Apples primary responsibilities. If they lose control of them then iPhone has little that is better than Android.
[+] [-] facorreia|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madeofpalk|5 years ago|reply
I absolutely do not want that to happen. This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. If Hey or ClassPass was relegated to some other app store on iOS, it may as well not exist.
[+] [-] psukhedelos|5 years ago|reply
Maybe they perceive this as a first step on a path of streaming apps in general? As internet connectivity continues to improve, what’s to stop all apps from simply being streamed? If they allow interactive remote gaming, why not allow us to stream text processors, photo editing apps, etc? How would they make any money off the App Store in a future where all apps are streamed bypassing their system all together?
I’m not advocating for this, just bouncing the ball in an attempt to understand their perspective. Where do you draw the line?
[+] [-] bob1029|5 years ago|reply
There is probably nothing Apple could do to prevent some determined engineer from building a streaming application framework that targets web instead of native apps for delivery of final server-side rasterized content. Best they could do is start blocking websites by IP/DNS which is arguably immediate grounds for Apple being split up and scattered to the seven winds by the FTC.
Hypothetically, you could develop this framework and build your own app store at myappstore.com. Instead of downloading binary images of applications from this site, it would actually host the application directly as a streaming web experience. For instance, accessing myappstore.com/MySocialMediaApp would be the resource that loads a full-screen server-side-rendered view of that specific application. All clients would just need to store a 256 bit cookie that is used for identifying the session. Everything else could live on the server, including 100% of the client view state. This model also makes it trivial to share application state between users or devices.
This kind of approach should sound like a massive boon to Apple in terms of them having absolute control & visibility, but I think they are just playing the current development ecosystem right now.
[+] [-] adamscybot|5 years ago|reply
Yes I agree, I think this is the answer. Video streaming is allowed since they already lost -- no one wants to download the whole video as an app first because the experience would suck.
That's not true of games...yet. They are scared it will be. As an enthusiast, I'm a little scared too!
[+] [-] curiousmindz|5 years ago|reply
So, we get a native app that also runs on a server, like a website.
As Microsoft Cloud Gaming (xCloud) and other platforms are proving, there are new markets for this type of apps.
[+] [-] adamscybot|5 years ago|reply
It's exactly the same logic.
[+] [-] sanderjd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
Videos, security, behavior etc wise, are all the same (as long as they use the same codecs). It's the video player code that matters and might have be audited, not each video.
Games and apps are obviously different, as they have dynamic behavior.
So it's not the same logic at all.
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|5 years ago|reply
1) I think that only I should decide if I want to run that app. The manufacturer no longer owns the device after selling it to me
2) The corrupt government if my county likes to block apps and Apple does as they ask. One day they'll remove the apps I really need, and it is not acceptable for me.
[+] [-] n-gauge|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefan_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|5 years ago|reply
Just what I was thinking. They allow Spotify and they don't insist on reviewing all the songs available. They allow the Netflix and the Google Play Movies app (and the equivalent movie streaming apps from Amazon, PlayStation, Rakuten, etc) without reviewing all the films that can be streamed there.
I suppose interactivity is the 'category difference' there, but what are they protecting the customer from?
[+] [-] nrmitchi|5 years ago|reply
I don't see how this logic doesn't also apply to Youtube, and other video-streaming apps? I get that it's less "interactive", but it's still content that Apple has "not reviewed".
[+] [-] foepys|5 years ago|reply
As a German this American prudery is especially disturbing. We got nudity (not sexual acts) on public daytime television...
[+] [-] Spivak|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javagram|5 years ago|reply
Youtube has millions of individual videos.
There’s an obvious difference in scale that makes reviewing one possible and the other not. Apple could never even propose to have each individual YouTube video reviewed by their App Store.
[+] [-] graeme|5 years ago|reply
Cloud gaming may be comparatively niche compared to the app market as a whole, but what other use cases will thus extend to? Individual app developers need Apple, but Apple needs apps in aggregate.
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timpetri|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myhf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wincy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwaite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lokar|5 years ago|reply
You can do almost everything the streaming service would do in a browser, but they allow browsers.
[+] [-] m4rtink|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rightbyte|5 years ago|reply
About xCloud I find it quite humourus that a terminal window system's name follows the footstep of the X Window System.
[+] [-] post_break|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangus|5 years ago|reply
They approved Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, HBO Max, etc, which let you stream TV shows and movies.
They approved Kindle, which lets you stream books.
I’m failing to see why a streaming game is a violation when all the above examples are okay.
[+] [-] creativeCak3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slumpt_|5 years ago|reply
Technological possibilities be damned. Apple doesn’t give a shit about moving the world forward, they give a shit about moving Apple stock upward.
[+] [-] Darthy|5 years ago|reply
Now Apple, please explain me this: Netflix is also a interactive game streaming platform. They have Bandersnatch, Interactive Carmen Sandiego, Interactive Puss in Boots, the Interactive Bear Grylls You vs Wild, and freaking Minecraft Story Mode which for all intents and purposes is a fully real game.
Netflix is a game streaming service, and it's on the app store!
Apple is massively inconsistent here, and has some major explaining to do!
[+] [-] bisby|5 years ago|reply
I'll just say that Apple has stupid policies. Stop using products that exist solely to lock you into a walled garden.
[+] [-] freehunter|5 years ago|reply