- 132comments
- 7comments
- 80comments
- 25comments
- 107comments
- 212comments
- 116comments
- 4comments
- 182comments
- 559comments
- 6comments
- 76comments
- 23comments
- 4comments
- 69comments
- 176comments
- —discuss
- 9comments
- 3comments
- 159comments
- 13comments
- 118comments
- 41comments
- 2comments
- 80comments
- 83comments
- 49comments
- 1comments
- 198comments
- 62comments
What else is new? When you buy an iOS device, Apple only wants you to use software that benefits them. If you want to use and control software of your choice, don't buy mobile devices or computers from Apple, end of story.
inb4 apple launches their own competing video-game streaming service
Apple Arcade
I am pretty skeptical about this being anywhere close to the whole story.
It isn't. And to be frank, this is getting really old quickly. It's always the same predictable marketing text, with slight variations depending on the current circumstances.
It's absolutely not about the user or the customer here. It's about them, and only them.
Which we know isn't true. Otherwise apps like Steam Link[1], PS4 Remote Play[2] or Google Stadia[3] wouldn't be on the store. It's hard to take Apple seriously when they pull shit like this. They only handle the app distribution, while all the heavy lifting is done by a third-party infrastructure. I know it's their walled garden, but at some point they'll have to admit they're going too far and they're crippling the market.
[1]: https://apps.apple.com/app/steam-link/id1246969117
[2]: https://apps.apple.com/app/ps4-remote-play/id1436192460
[3]: https://apps.apple.com/app/google-stadia/id1471900213
Huh, their explanation makes no sense. Do they review every single Spotify song or Netflix movie and show? I don't see how this is any different.
Apple has never made any claims of being logically consistent in their App Store decisions.
The article mentions that the difference between movies/songs and games is that the later is interactive while the former aren't.
Movies and songs don't offer (yet?) "in-movie"/"in-song" transactions, therefore they aren't a potential source of revenue.
So basically, they want a piece of the cake and their argument is pretty much made up?
I suppose we should think ourselves lucky that Safari doesn't limit us only to websites that have been individually listed, reviewed and rated by Apple.
Don't give them any ideas.
Safari is not available on the app store.
Technically no browser is allowed on the app store, just skins around safari.
I'm surprised the porn industry isn't making a fuss about this.
Apple is basically saying the only way you can access porn is through safari.
No app that accesses porn is allowed on the AppStore.
Steam Link already exists on the platform and allows streaming arbitrary games from your own Steam library on a desktop, so something seems a bit weird here.
Sounds like pretty standard Apple App Store “reviewer roulette” to me. Each reviewer seems to read Apple’s rules differently and consistency is not clearly enforced.
I guess Steam Link is treated more like VNC/RDP client for your gaming PC.
You don't subscribe to Steam Link, however. It's a "free" service.
I bet if Google or Microsoft were willing to give Apple a cut of the subscription cost for Stadia/GamePass by using IAP, there wouldn't be a story here.
in an ideal world game steaming would get popular enough to where people switch to buying android phones in order to do it.
but in this scenario apple might actually cave and twist their rules hypocritically
It sounds to me like they want to limit competition of their arcade.
I understand that in a way this Xbox thing would be like an AppStore within the AppStore and you’d be able to circumvent Apple’s policies as long as you find Microsoft’s more appealing. I can see how that part could be a genuine concern for Apple, but this also being a direct competitor for the arcade just makes it look bad.
It’s less like an AppStore inside an AppStore and more like a movie inside Netflix or a purchased TV show inside the Amazon app.
Yes, but also no. It is more like an AppStore because it offers interactive content (games) that is 100% like what the AppStore already offers and wants to audit and control.
I am not saying that Apple should not allow this in the store, I can just see a legitimate angle as well as the more fishy angle that I mentioned.
Also, if Netflix were to start offering porn lets say, I bet Apple would have concerns there too.
One more data point in the long list of data points supporting the idea that Apple should no longer be allowed to run its App Store however they see fit, as they are clearly doing so in an anti-competitive way.