Just going to websites is what killed Windows phones. Apps are way easier and people want apps and easy together. That attitude will your precious iOS.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Phil Schiller Explains Why Valve's Steam Link App Was Rejected
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The op suggested that they kick Facebook out of iOS. Facebook have no need to act hardball
Apple will never kick Facebook out. Correct use of will
Edit
Btw - my initial post about this was tongue in cheek, as depicted by ;-) at the end of the post.
How long would that app be if people decided to not go there any longer?
Jobs turned out to be correct about Flash, although the lack of compatibility on early iPhones is what made me buy an Android phone specifically. Android claimed that they would/could run Flash. For the most part, no they couldn’t. Things kept breaking on literally a weekly basis. And then all the hackers discovered how to exploit the myriad of security flaws in Flash. Eventually Android announced that they would no longer support Flash either.
Lol this strawman has already been posted before by multiple people, why don't you read the thread before repeating others?
These apps have established users on iOS. Steam does not. People do not buy iOS products for Steam, as they have never had a foothold on that market previously. It's comparing Apples to Oranges.
Choose an app that isn't on iOS to compare Steam to, that is the relevant comparison.
They don’t really need Steam to be honest. Apple is gatekeeper to one of the biggest mobile OS’s. Apple IS the one that rejected Valve’s app, after all.
In that case, Apple should remove all remote desktop app too
A) Apple is no a single monolithic thing.
B) Somebody power down in the totem pole made a mistake.
I think th don’t iBook case was about them colluding with the five major publishers. Meaning there was a monopoly involved, it just wasn’t Apple.
That’s not how it works.
I want there to be some downside to ignoring the rules. It turns out Facebook can do whatever they want, and I’m the idiot for wanting consequences.
Also, iOS isn’t precious to me. It’s just better for me now than the alternative. I could use Android if need be.
Yes, there are regional monopolies. But you can’t have a monopoly of a product. Would you say Target is a monopoly of Target stores with a straight face?
With that defense, then it's the same with the Windows store, the Android store, etc. You can't say that Apple has a monopoly on the app store when it's on their own platform and is a native feature of their OS (i.e. you can't uninstall it).
An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusivepower to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, therebysuppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product orservice substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
Doesn’t fit in, really. They’re not “suppressing competition” by not having a single app from a single company.
Google has a quasi monopoly on Android apps, because even if you can sideload, or use alternative app stores, many are only available in Google Play.
The Windows Store would be a monopoly in the OS version which prevents installing from anywhere else (but it can be upgraded to the full version for a certain price).
[doublepost=1527531115][/doublepost]
They are suppressing competition by not allowing third party stores and direct sales.
Last edited:
You should start a case, then. See how it goes. I’ll be here when Apple wins, ready to pat you on the back for giving it the good old college try.
There's already an AppStore class action lawsuit in the US, investigations against Google Play and Apple in the EU, and a case against the AppStore in China.
Last edited:
if valve removes the ability to buy or redeem product from within the app, it should be fine. ios games, including apple tv, require the game be playable without a gamepad, which has not worked out so far for some AAA titles. the apple tv remote as a gamepad makes for a poor gaming experience. the steam link is more about games that require a gamepad.
ship ipad and apple tv with a gamepad, and allow games in the ios app store that require a controller. or approve the steam link app. not rocket science. valve doesn't make games for ios there is no business conflict here. even gaming on macos is widely acknowledged as subpar to gaming on windows. many games on steam are windows-only and not available on macos. no conflict of interest here. it is impossible for the app to affect apple's bottom line. the steam link app only adds value to the apple ecosystem.
"Stream Sony PS4 games to your Microsoft XBOX One or Nintendo Switch." ... Clearly that would be a conflict of interest. This, on the other hand, is not even close.
ship ipad and apple tv with a gamepad, and allow games in the ios app store that require a controller. or approve the steam link app. not rocket science. valve doesn't make games for ios there is no business conflict here. even gaming on macos is widely acknowledged as subpar to gaming on windows. many games on steam are windows-only and not available on macos. no conflict of interest here. it is impossible for the app to affect apple's bottom line. the steam link app only adds value to the apple ecosystem.
"Stream Sony PS4 games to your Microsoft XBOX One or Nintendo Switch." ... Clearly that would be a conflict of interest. This, on the other hand, is not even close.
Last edited:
In this case Valve a big developer is being shown the door while apps like Moonlight continue to be on the Store. How is this fair in any way? Rules are clearly not the same for everyone as Apple keeps trying to enforce.
You’re right. It isn’t fair. The rules should be applied evenly. If Valve is in the wrong, apply that to everyone who is in the wrong. Period.
When I've got nothing better to do, I play games on my Mac, and I don't know what you're talking about. Besides personal experience... Looking at newer Macs and theoretical game specs, the RX580 in eGPU kits and similar internal cards in high-end Macs are more than capable for new high-graphics games.
Also, many popular games aren't that demanding graphics-wise. I'll bet the most popular (=> lots of revenue => Valve cares) games are easy on the GPU, like Fortnite, LoL, and CS:GO, and those run fine even on Intel integrated. The vast majority of people don't know what a GPU is!
[doublepost=1527534518][/doublepost]
Compared to what, the Mac App Store? Steam has its annoyances, but it's the best for games, even if you're only talking about the client itself (MAS is a steaming pile of poo with its lag and glitches).
[doublepost=1527534725][/doublepost]
If you compare the revenues and profits of their game-related services, it's the opposite case. Or neither needs each other.
Last edited:
Compared to GoG, the PlayStation Store, the Xbox Store, and the Nintendo Store on the Switch. I’m not even talking about the app, but the problems that have cropped up on Steam within the past few years. Around 7600 games were released in 2017 alone, which sounds good until you realize some of them don’t even run.
Ok, yes, console stores are always better, esp Nintendo's. I thought you were saying it's bad for a PC game store. Gaming on a PC is generally cheaper but more problematic.
Steam has the advantage of being cheaper. GoG is a better store, and it is a PC store. Even Origin has better customer service. Steam will literally sell you a game that has no .exe file.
Can't say I've ever heard of games on Steam being that broken. Worst case I've seen something with compatibility issues or bugs, like Age of Empires II HD (btw thanks MSFT for utterly ruining that).
There's only one real question here, the ONLY reason they are banning it is they do NOT get their 30% cut FROM the developers who wirte the games that can play through Stream. ANYother reasons you hear from the fruit is hooey. SO the question is, does it make economic sense for game developer x to fork over that 30%?
Of course, there is a whole 'nother issue at work here that doesn't have much to do with Stream & Valve... and that is gaming on a mobile device (and I don't mean simplistic stuff like Angry Birds). BUT that is a topic NOT for this thread!
Of course, there is a whole 'nother issue at work here that doesn't have much to do with Stream & Valve... and that is gaming on a mobile device (and I don't mean simplistic stuff like Angry Birds). BUT that is a topic NOT for this thread!