Support NeoGAF

[sainraja]

sure sure…

Apple outlined steps MS could take to put Game Pass on iOS via the App store AND Gamepass is available on the iOS as a web app. If blocking Gamepass due to Apple Arcade was the goal, Gamepass wouldn't be there in any shape. That's a narrative someone is trying to create.

You have seen Apple becoming more and more restrictive about what apps can offer and how they are allowed to look like as they started to make more and more money on services. Purely coincidental…

Creating the rules, breaking them for their own apps (and some big apps) all the time (hello Xcode on the sandboxed Mac App Store), and launching apps that compete with the other ones they are regulating… no conflict of interests there because… reasons .

It shows how begrudgingly they follow laws sometimes, you can read it when they remind people they “do respect the local laws and regulations”… as if it were optional and when they comply they make mockery of the intent of the law (see exception in the Netherlands for dating apps and pretending to get a cut of those payments they do NOTHING for).

It's a balance. Apple is providing a walled garden where the experience provided is controlled by Apple. They still have to be competitive so there will be exceptions. It is Apple's ecosystem and if you aren't into that, you have the Android world.

 

[sainraja]

If Apple is allowed to only let you install apps through their store, then every OS should be allowed to do the same, including Windows. But we all know that will never happen.

There is a version of Windows where MS is able to do exactly that.

 

[Closer]

There is a version of Windows where MS is able to do exactly that.

It is also a opt-in and you can opt-out anytime.

 

[MarkMe2525]

If everyone didn't have to go through the same door, the apps would be available via other methods or through other stores — no guarantee that they will be made available via the App store.

Well isn't that the case now? Their current policies are the reason an iOS user doesn't have access to native apps for Fortnite and xcloud.

I understand your pov, but from my perspective it's advantageous to the customer to have options.

 

[ReBurn]

COVERED COMPANY.—The term ‘‘Covered Company’’ means any person that owns or controls an App Store for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%20Open%20App%20Markets%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf

Shit would get funny if MS gets caught cause they are stronger in the US but not Sony. Personally as a consumer, idgaf if I have the option to buy games on my xbox via MS or maybe in the future Valve. I am going to choose the storefront with the better deal/value.

Microsoft wouldn't get caught by this because they're not doing the same thing. Microsoft and Nintendo still allow console digital games to be sold on competing storefronts, but you do have to download them from Microsoft and Nintendo. You can go to Amazon and buy download codes for digital Xbox games right now. Sony's currently dealing with some yahoo pushing a class action because they only allow digital sales through the PlayStation store and as a result fix prices for digital games. Probably won't go anywhere but it's out there.

 

[Lognor]

Apple outlined steps MS could take to put Game Pass on iOS via the App store AND Gamepass is available on the iOS as a web app. If blocking Gamepass due to Apple Arcade was the goal, Gamepass wouldn't be there in any shape. That's a narrative someone is trying to create.


It's a balance. Apple is providing a walled garden where the experience provided is controlled by Apple. They still have to be competitive so there will be exceptions. It is Apple's ecosystem and if you aren't into that, you have the Android world.

What was the reason that Microsoft could not release game pass on ios in the same manner they've done on Android? It works perfectly on Android so whatever steps Apple is asking Microsoft to make lead to a worse experience. What is Apple's motivation to have MS to change it?

 

[sainraja]

It is also a opt-in and you can opt-out anytime.

I was responding to someone who said Windows should also be able to do the same (side note: Microsoft has tried testing that model with their Windows ecosystem, something Apple has yet to try on their MacBook side of things. They wanted to see how people would receive that otherwise why even have that?)

Look, I understand the benefits and options we would have if Apple were to relax their policies but I have yet to see a system like Apple's that offers a consistent and reliable experience across the board. I am OKAY with Apple's policies as long as they continue to provide they experience they have so far. I have no reason to doubt it. I have a Windows machine too and MS is trying to get there but I dunno Windows just doesn't feel right to me anymore lol.

What was the reason that Microsoft could not release game pass on ios in the same manner they've done on Android? It works perfectly on Android so whatever steps Apple is asking Microsoft to make lead to a worse experience. What is Apple's motivation to have MS to change it?

Doesn't it have to do with transactions of games?
Apple probably wants to have control over how they are distributed on their system. I know you will be quick to bring up movies & music but Apple most likely realizes it's late to control that the way they would like at this point and I know they had a big hand in how music transitioned to digital + the current ecosystem they have also didn't exist exactly this way then; with gaming, they might be seeing an opportunity to influence it — still — this is just a guess on my part. See my above response to see where I sit exactly on the "opinion" spectrum and don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand the benefits if it wasn't so strict but I much prefer the experience Apple offers now and wouldn't trade it for more "openness".

 

[Closer]

Look, I understand the benefits and options we would have if Apple were to relax their policies but I have yet to see a system like Apple's that offers a consistent and reliable experience across the board. I am OKAY with Apple's policies as long as they continue to provide they experience they have so far.

This I can't argue with, but it sure is funny how people think that Apple allowing people to do whatever they want to their device somehow is gonna change Apple's offering. You could enjoy Apple's everything while also enjoying something else on the same device.

 

[sainraja]

This I can't argue with, but it sure is funny how people think that Apple allowing people to do whatever they want to their device somehow is gonna change Apple's offering. You could enjoy Apple's everything while also enjoying something else on the same device.

Not necessarily change Apple's offerings but I do think it will have an impact — could be positive but could also be negative. But right now what is in front of me is what Apple offers right now and I wouldn't trade it.

 

[Closer]

Not necessarily change Apple's offerings but I do think it will have an impact — could be positive but could also be negative. But right now what is in front of me is what Apple offers right now and I wouldn't trade it.

You have no choice. You wouldn't trade because you can't. That's it.

 

[sainraja]

You have no choice. You wouldn't trade because you can't. That's it.

That was my way of saying I am OK with how they are doing things right now and if this what worse is, then I am good for it lol.

 

[Closer]

That was my way of saying I am OK with how they are doing things right now and if this what worse is, then I am good for it lol.

That was just you being ok with the status quo. It's ok. No problem with that.

 

[Nezzeroth]

Apple does not make the only smartphone. Microsoft makes the only PC OS in widespread consumer use. If you get tired of Apple, you can easily move to Android next time you upgrade, and retain all of the basic necessities and functions. If you get tired of Windows, you don't really have anywhere to go for anything approaching the same level of usability - even if Linux made great strides in recent years, it still has a long way to go.

A Mac can do anything that the vast majority of PC users need, other than maybe gaming and there are consoles for that.

You can't tell a company that they must give up control over their product. Apple makes the iPhone, it distributes it, supports it, everything in the iPhone is Apple, top to bottom. You can't say that about just any PC. Microsoft makes and distributes Surfaces, and they definitely have the final say of what is included in the package there. You can tell Microsoft what the generally available builds of Windows must be like, to conform to competitive law and fairness and whatnot. But you can't tell them what build to install on the PCs they make and distribute themselves. They could make a completely locked-down build of Windows for their Surface devices, and they'd suffer no repercussions. I don't see why Apple is different. On an individual-to-individual level, nothing prevents an iPhone user from giving up their iPhone in favor of an Android.

You are basically saying Microsoft is allowed to do what they want with a specific version of Windows. On a very limited amount of devices like the Surface line. Why is Microsoft only allowed to do what they want with specific versions of Windows when Apple doesn’t even offer a version of iOS that lets you do what you want with it?

Both should be allowed whatever restrictions they want on their OS, on all versions, or both should be forced to keep them open.

 

[phil_t98]

So your telling me that anybody should be able to tell you what profits you make from your own business?

 

[Andodalf]

So your telling me that anybody should be able to tell you what profits you make from your own business?

?????? YES!!!! Absofuckinglutley. You can’t have slaves, for instance. Great profits, but immoral. You can’t trick stupid people into taking on massive amounts of debt at insane rates (in decent places).


The list goes on and on. Fuck you if you think companies should be allowed to prey on people and do whatever they want. Fuck that.

 

[phil_t98]

At least one of the bills in the Congress does it by the MAU users within the US so it currently doesn't seem to effect the console manufacturers but Apple And Google. Its not like it has to be a binary switch.

Yeah but do you honestly think if epic wins this they won’t look at getting more money off the games that are on console?

If they win this it sets a standard that can be used for other devices. It’s not about us the gamers getting cheaper products it just about them wanting a bigger cut and less money for the store front owners

 

[phil_t98]

?????? YES!!!! Absofuckinglutley. You can’t have slaves, for instance. Great profits, but immoral. You can’t trick stupid people into taking on massive amounts of debt at insane rates (in decent places).


The list goes on and on. Fuck you if you think companies should be allowed to prey on people and do whatever they want. Fuck that.

Again epic have a choice to put their game on other platforms. They are not forced to put it on apple and and they have set fees for being on there.

I have my own company and I set the price for my products. Nobody can come in and tell me they want to pay less for the product I provide.

 

[Andodalf]

Again epic have a choice to put their game on other platforms. They are not forced to put it on apple and and they have set fees for being on there.

I have my own company and I set the price for my products. Nobody can come in and tell me they want to pay less for the product I provide.

You’re told how much to pay employees. Theirs struck standards on distribution. You have to have licenses. In some markets there is literally government price fixing. Your are not just doing whatever you feel like, and if you tried to do so in a predatory way you would be open to action in the exact same way as apple. Which is a good thing.

 

[RoboFu]

Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything you could put on your computer, and Charged a fee for every purchase on their platform.



It would be broken up faster than you can say "antitrust"

imagine if every person in the world had free reign to push whatever kind of scam laiden one click microtransaction and put what ever spyware / malware on your phone that they wanted... you would have windows actually. lol and with that comes daily windows still updates.


I say have an option that locks you out of all interconnected functrionality that could possibly harm other users and let users decide.

 

[phil_t98]

You’re told how much to pay employees. Theirs struck standards on distribution. You have to have licenses. In some markets there is literally government price fixing. Your are not just doing whatever you feel like, and if you tried to do so in a predatory way you would be open to action in the exact same way as apple. Which is a good thing.

So apple are setting 30% of any payment through there App Store is predatory?

Now I ain’t condoning wages and anything else but they can fix the price you pay to them on their app store

 

[Andodalf]

So apple are setting 30% of any payment through there App Store is predatory?

Now I ain’t condoning wages and anything else but they can fix the price you pay to them on their app store

The issue is not allowing other storefronts. If you’re going to do that you can’t also be taking a fee. Maybe for some small closed system, but IOS is the primary method of computing for hundreds of millions of people. It has to be open

 

[phil_t98]

The issue is not allowing other storefronts. If you’re going to do that you can’t also be taking a fee. Maybe for some small closed system, but IOS is the primary method of computing for hundreds of millions of people. It has to be open

But the point is it doesn’t have to be open. It’s how apple want it to be, there are other options available such as android

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

You can’t have slaves, for instance.

The 'slaves' in this case, are free to leave. Both the devs and the users, if they find the situation untenable. There is no contract keeping them bound.

You are basically saying Microsoft is allowed to do what they want with a specific version of Windows. On a very limited amount of devices like the Surface line. Why is Microsoft only allowed to do what they want with specific versions of Windows when Apple doesn’t even offer a version of iOS that lets you do what you want with it?

Because Apple's product does not come with a version for independent use. Ask Adobe why Photoshop doesn't have a free version that isn't a time-limited trial.

...okay, bad example. Adobe should really get high-profile competition, or rather the likes of Krita should get promoted more.
But, really. A product is a product. Microsoft offers a version of their product for everyone, and they're free to make a version that's not for everyone. Apple only makes a version that's not for everyone, because it's software tied to hardware tied into one ecosystem, like a console.

Both should be allowed whatever restrictions they want on their OS, on all versions, or both should be forced to keep them open.

That makes not a single lick of sense. Or rather your understanding of that statement doesn't make sense. They're both allowed whatever restrictions they want for their own products. But for the open market, Microsoft is not allowed to exert their market-dominant power to promote their own products above others. Apple, is also not allowed - but its product is the iPhone, not the iOS. It doesn't sell the iOS.

The iPhone and the iOS are a single, complete package. So Apple is not allowed to use its leverage to obstruct Android phones, its direct competition. Within their own product though, the sheer existence of the App Store is a courtesy. It only exists there at Apple's whim, because Apple needs a way to distribute its own apps on the platform. The iPhone does not need an App Store, any App Store, to function in principle. But it's made better by it, so it exists, and as such provides a means for developers to earn money from Apple's product's success. At no point is Apple required to make its platform open, just because it has become successful.

 

[jakinov]

Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything you could put on your computer, and Charged a fee for every purchase on their platform.



It would be broken up faster than you can say "antitrust"

Thats only because Microsoft Windows has majority market share than all competition combined. Apple does shit that Microsoft would get in trouble for all the time but because they don’t control the market the government doesn’t care. Controlling your platform is simply controlling your platform. Doing things to help ensure you maintain or get to a monopoly is when the government comes in.

 

[ReBurn]

Thats only because Microsoft Windows has majority market share than all competition combined. Apple does shit that Microsoft would get in trouble for all the time but because they don’t control the market the government doesn’t care. Controlling your platform is simply controlling your platform. Doing things to help ensure you maintain or get to a monopoly is when the government comes in.

The last few revisions of MacOS have become increasingly difficult to install third party apps onto. If the source isn't approved you have to dig into security settings and allow it to install. Even then there have been things I couldn't whitelist or I couldn't open because Apple deemed them inappropriate. It's like if it wasn't built and signed through XCode with an active Apple developer account you can't install it.

 

[BlackM1st]

Fuck Apple, rip n tear boys!

 

[Deerock71]

How many dozens? In the States, we only have four.

 

[Fuz]

 

[reksveks]

How many dozens? In the States, we only have four.

Close to 3 dozens, 35 I think

 

[darrylgorn]

Apple forcing you to use their software only through their own hardware doesn’t make the situation any better, it’s worse if anything.

Microsoft has been sued multiple times for monopoly concerns for shit much smaller than this like Internet Explorer, when you were always free to use something else. Meanwhile Apple can forbid you to use any app they want and that’s fine.

If people were so bothered about Microsoft practices with Windows, they could always install Linux on their hardware and use that instead. You can’t do that on an Apple device. That makes the situation worse, not better.

More people probably would have gone to Apple and Linux if Microsoft was allowed to keep its restrictions.

 

[Calling 911 Melts Beams]

nobody ever had to sue atari for how they handled distribution of games for the jaguar CD....

 

[lillars]

I like my Apple phone, but there are some things that could be more open.

I agree. It's a great smartphone, but annoying as hell that everything has to go through the app store. You can't even get Brave BATs anymore which allowed you to donate a little something from advertisements to websites directly. They struck that down because they want a cut of donations for themselves. It has absolutely nothing to do with the App Store! And I thought I was greedy...

 

[TheGrat1]

People whom are saying buy Android, do release that Google is getting sued as well for similar practices, right?

You can install software on an android device without going through the Play Store.

 

[Lognor]

I was responding to someone who said Windows should also be able to do the same (side note: Microsoft has tried testing that model with their Windows ecosystem, something Apple has yet to try on their MacBook side of things. They wanted to see how people would receive that otherwise why even have that?)

Look, I understand the benefits and options we would have if Apple were to relax their policies but I have yet to see a system like Apple's that offers a consistent and reliable experience across the board. I am OKAY with Apple's policies as long as they continue to provide they experience they have so far. I have no reason to doubt it. I have a Windows machine too and MS is trying to get there but I dunno Windows just doesn't feel right to me anymore lol.


Doesn't it have to do with transactions of games?
Apple probably wants to have control over how they are distributed on their system. I know you will be quick to bring up movies & music but Apple most likely realizes it's late to control that the way they would like at this point and I know they had a big hand in how music transitioned to digital + the current ecosystem they have also didn't exist exactly this way then; with gaming, they might be seeing an opportunity to influence it — still — this is just a guess on my part. See my above response to see where I sit exactly on the "opinion" spectrum and don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand the benefits if it wasn't so strict but I much prefer the experience Apple offers now and wouldn't trade it for more "openness".

I'll never go back to apple and game pass is just one example. So locked down. Awful experience for a power user like myself. Hope epic wins out. Apple needs a lot more openness

 

[reksveks]

You can install software on an android device without going through the Play Store.

Trust me I know but it doesn't stop Google from trying thier best to make it as hard as possible via dark ui practices and questionable bundling of the play store. We will see what the judge says regarding it being anti-competitive.

 

[BacklashWave534]

Apple allows you to put anything on their laptops. It is just their phones that are restrictive and that doesn't make them a monopoly given Android exists.

Yeah, because Apple blocking Xbox Gamepass wasn't monopolistic behavior because it was on mobile.....

 

[sainraja]

I'll never go back to apple and game pass is just one example. So locked down. Awful experience for a power user like myself. Hope epic wins out. Apple needs a lot more openness

Game Pass is also a level of control....actually...let me rephrase that (don't want to trigger any twitchy fanboys here) → subscription services are a form of control over how we consume content in the digital space
1.) companies don't have to worry about managing a licensing system or some form of DRM, 2.) people making copies of their content and distributing it online since everything is stored on their servers, 3.) guaranteed recurring revenue for the company who manages to convince X amount of people to keep paying. Most of us are okay with those due to the convenience and value it provides and in some cases, saves us money since some of us consume a lot of content and paying for it all can be financially difficult.

Regardless, the point is, you are completely fine with one type of control because you have completely bought into it while you question the other. My personal take is simply based on what I've seen Apple do with their products that others are not doing and until that changes I am fine with what Apple is doing on iOS. Kinda like how you feel about Game Pass.

Yeah, because Apple blocking Xbox Gamepass wasn't monopolistic behavior because it was on mobile.....

People have a choice to go with Android if they want a system that is open'er. Yes, Google Play is going through the same thing but on Android you can get access to third-party stores if you really want. So Android is your "choice" there. You don't need Apple if you don't like their policies. You are not stuck with them. So yeah.

 

[AMSCD]

Ok so what I don’t get, if you don’t agree with the practices of the company then don’t put your product on there.

Second when they signed the agreement originally why were they ok with it then but not now?

Just because you accept a contract doesn't mean you agree with every provision. Sometimes you have no other choice.

 

[phil_t98]

Just because you accept a contract doesn't mean you agree with every provision. Sometimes you have no other choice.

they have a choice, they don't have to be on the App Store and stay on other stores

 

[Graciaus]

Just because you accept a contract doesn't mean you agree with every provision. Sometimes you have no other choice.

If you sign the contract it doesn't really matter anymore what you think. That is the point of a contract.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Just because you accept a contract doesn't mean you agree with every provision. Sometimes you have no other choice.

You have a choice of platforms, in this case. Signing the contract to be on the platform means you've weighed the pros and cons and decided they're worth it. You're not entitled to changes that benefit you and hurt the platform - you can ask, but whether or not you'll get anything is entirely at the platform owner's discretion. If you find you no longer like the platform, you are not contractually bound to stay.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Apple gets away with it LITERALLY because Android exists.

Americans may not know this but worldwide Android has the biggest market share. Hence Apple is not a monopoly so regulators haven't gone after them for a long time.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything you could put on your computer, and Charged a fee for every purchase on their platform.



It would be broken up faster than you can say "antitrust"

Now imagine that Microsoft vetted every single app for viruses, malware, and privacy, while also providing other valuable functions such as license sharing.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You have a choice of platforms, in this case. Signing the contract to be on the platform means you've weighed the pros and cons and decided they're worth it. You're not entitled to changes that benefit you and hurt the platform - you can ask, but whether or not you'll get anything is entirely at the platform owner's discretion. If you find you no longer like the platform, you are not contractually bound to stay.

I would completely disagree with that based on how ubiquitous iOS is in UK schools and government departments via iPads. Any developer working for those sectors has no way to save their clients Apple's cut, and hence have to add it to the cost of their product - forcing the cost up for those departments and the UK tax payers - a scenario very similar across most major countries of the world I would reckon.

When a platform is a common defacto choice in society for regular computing needs, the rules for the platform are transformed IMHO to have societal and fair market practice responsibilities.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

When a platform is a common defacto choice in society for regular computing needs, the rules for the platform are transformed IMHO to have societal and fair market practice responsibilities.

The biggest problem I have with that line of logic, is that the notion of "fair" somehow changes when the platform becomes widespread and successful, even if the rules and costs of the platform remained the same throughout its entire existence. What you're describing is covered by competitive law, yes, but all competitive law says is that the platform must not use its market power to change market conditions and deny competition. Apple isn't using its market power to do anything - its adoption rate is purely natural growth due to various factors, like the convenience of a common integrated platform (see: Steam). It's not doing anything to shut out competition, besides making the most desirable product it can make, and reaping the benefits.

Last I heard, success is not illegal. Apple could make concessions and provide cost reductions or special offers for education purposes, for instance, a lot of companies do it to boost adoption. It's just that Apple... doesn't seem to need any boosts. If anything, they need more users to stay away from the platform now, so they can keep being covered by the existence of competition from Android.

 

[Andodalf]

Now imagine that Microsoft vetted every single app for viruses, malware, and privacy, while also providing other valuable functions such as license sharing.

literally does nothing to change the massive economic issues at hand

 

[reinking]

Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything you could put on your computer, and Charged a fee for every purchase on their platform.

Do you really think these are the same things? This is closer to imagine if MS created a piece of equipment and controlled everything that can be put on it. (Hint, they have one). Even that is not the same thing but much closer than using PC as an example.

 

[SomeGit]

There is a version of Windows where MS is able to do exactly that.

That version was very short lived and doesn't exist as a seperate edition anymore. It was Windows 10 S, but it was replaced with just S mode on full Windows 10.

 

[Lognor]

Game Pass is also a level of control....actually...let me rephrase that (don't want to trigger any twitchy fanboys here) → subscription services are a form of control over how we consume content in the digital space
1.) companies don't have to worry about managing a licensing system or some form of DRM, 2.) people making copies of their content and distributing it online since everything is stored on their servers, 3.) guaranteed recurring revenue for the company who manages to convince X amount of people to keep paying. Most of us are okay with those due to the convenience and value it provides and in some cases, saves us money since some of us consume a lot of content and paying for it all can be financially difficult.

Regardless, the point is, you are completely fine with one type of control because you have completely bought into it while you question the other. My personal take is simply based on what I've seen Apple do with their products that others are not doing and until that changes I am fine with what Apple is doing on iOS. Kinda like how you feel about Game Pass.

I'll admit that Game Pass is a level of control (although it is optional on Xbox unlike ios on iphone). But why would I want control on top of control? No thanks. Android lets me have a ton more freedom which I value immensely. Apple doesn't like Game Pass because it doesn't let them line their pockets. Simple as that.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The biggest problem I have with that line of logic, is that the notion of "fair" somehow changes when the platform becomes widespread and successful, even if the rules and costs of the platform remained the same throughout its entire existence. What you're describing is covered by competitive law, yes, but all competitive law says is that the platform must not use its market power to change market conditions and deny competition. Apple isn't using its market power to do anything - its adoption rate is purely natural growth due to various factors, like the convenience of a common integrated platform (see: Steam). It's not doing anything to shut out competition, besides making the most desirable product it can make, and reaping the benefits.

Last I heard, success is not illegal. Apple could make concessions and provide cost reductions or special offers for education purposes, for instance, a lot of companies do it to boost adoption. It's just that Apple... doesn't seem to need any boosts. If anything, they need more users to stay away from the platform now, so they can keep being covered by the existence of competition from Android.

I get your point, but I think you are still trying to make a special case for Apple in regards to what is just normal devices with general purpose computing use which should allow general purpose software - software not made or vetted by Apple - to run on the general purpose devices.

There's nothing inherently special about any general purpose computing device IMHO, because they've all stood on the shoulders of giants to get their success - from any technology with a published RFC, specification/protocol or open source implementation. Java's windowing toolkit demonstrated 20years ago, that interfaces are relatively generic in computing and they could all be subsumed. The "Look and feel" of iOS doesn't make it exempt from needing to allow open access to run software on devices