"Mulan" is an in-app purchase of a video stream. If the games are delivered as a stream, then they are similar. It sounded like these games were installing local code on a phone/tablet. If that's the case, it's very different and a violation of apple's historical policy against embedded stores. Streams are the exception.
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.
Facebook Criticizes Apple's App Store Policies, Launches Gaming App on iOS Without Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Mulan" is an in-app purchase of a video stream. If the games are delivered as a stream, then they are similar. It sounded like these games were installing local code on a phone/tablet. If that's the case, it's very different and a violation of apple's historical policy against embedded stores. Streams are the exception.
I'd hazard a guess Disney aren't paying 30%, and it makes me wonder if this partly the problem with MS ( I'm ignoring Facebook.... ).
There's just something about Microsoft complaining about the App Store that makes me laugh, I always imagine them looking a bit sulky....
Is it though? Does this app allow you to install games on your device or are you doing everything inside the app? Are you paying for games inside the app to be watched or played in the app?
The difference is that gaming is moving into streaming territory now. Google and Microsoft both (and I guess Facebook, Sony) have cloud game streaming services. This would be like Apple rejecting Netflix because they can't police what shows Netflix has on demand, or charge you a 30% fee for each show you watch.
Facebook has a bone to pick because Apple's privacy policies are starting to affect their revenue stream from ios users.
Where did I say they were a charity or should be forced to do anything (spoiler... I didn’t)?
I‘m pointing out Apple’s doublespeak and hypocrisy. Apple says they do not use their market position to stifle competition yet the opposite is clearly true (and your comment admits this).
Maybe let the end user decide whether they would like to use it or not? Do not let Apple get away with deciding this for us. I love Apple's products and services but they need to allow all gaming platforms on iOS. App store is a great store but streaming games is the future.
Poor Zuckerberg. Whatever will he do with one less way to harvest your private data and sell it?
Last edited:
I’m now regretting sending my s20 back to keep my 11 pro..
not for this Facebook app which I’d never bother with but for the Microsoft one, and the ability to buy stuff in apps.
not for this Facebook app which I’d never bother with but for the Microsoft one, and the ability to buy stuff in apps.
Roblox is a streaming game app. Why is that in the Apple App Store? My kids play it endlessly.
However, I just read: When you make a game, you have an option to allow users to play offline. This lets users download a version of the game that they can play as single player.
I bet that's how Roblox is able to get around Apple's "game streaming" restrictions.
Perhaps Xbox, Google, Facebook can enable that option like Roblox did?
However, I just read: When you make a game, you have an option to allow users to play offline. This lets users download a version of the game that they can play as single player.
I bet that's how Roblox is able to get around Apple's "game streaming" restrictions.
Perhaps Xbox, Google, Facebook can enable that option like Roblox did?
Sure Apple needs to allow Facebook, Google, Microsoft's etc. gaming plattforms. However, unless Apple gives up on App store completely and allows software to be installed outside of the App store (and I don't see this coming) they need to come up with an acceptable solution for these gaming plattforms.
The big question is: is Apple entitled to profit from these kinds of plattforms? The answer is complicated. If the app is free but the subscription inside is not, and said subscription can be bought via Facebook instead of the Apple App store, then Facebook stands for all the server side costs and thus maybe Apple is entitled to nothing? Facebook etc. still helps Apple retain users by offering great games on their plattform right? Very complicated.
It’s not the loss of money. It’s a the Trojan horse aspect of allowing platforms on your platform that’s the issue.
it’s one of the reasons they didn’t like flash etc
when you allow a platform on your platform you lose control of the experience your customers have. Then you spend a life time dealing with problems caused by that Trojan horse platform. Finally the platform runs off with your customers and then decides to give your system a crappier experience than on others. Then your stuck.
So the rule is, don’t build stuff on my stuff that will end up cutting out my stuff!
when you know the history of things it’s easier to understand what’s going on.
it’s one of the reasons they didn’t like flash etc
when you allow a platform on your platform you lose control of the experience your customers have. Then you spend a life time dealing with problems caused by that Trojan horse platform. Finally the platform runs off with your customers and then decides to give your system a crappier experience than on others. Then your stuck.
So the rule is, don’t build stuff on my stuff that will end up cutting out my stuff!
when you know the history of things it’s easier to understand what’s going on.
Your kids must not play Roblox then, because it's a Trojan horse of infinite streaming games.
[automerge]1596808088[/automerge]
So is Roblox and that's in the Apple App Store for years now.
This is the problem when the owner of the store competes with the sellers in the store. The store owner can't be objective in such cases.
Roblox is in the Apple App Store for years and it's a streaming gaming system with infinite games.
You should check out Roblox. It's is game streaming platform and is in the Apple App Store.
Personally? I don't think there IS any anti-competitive racket when it comes to Apple's app store?
Their store and their decision who gets to sell what on its virtual shelves. Pretty simple!
Everything else is sour grapes from people who wanted to make more money selling stuff there but were rejected.
When Apple refuses to let apps in that users would like to have, though? It just sends a stronger message that they might want to switch to an Android based phone handset or tablet. So whatever .... Apple's choice.
Their store and their decision who gets to sell what on its virtual shelves. Pretty simple!
Everything else is sour grapes from people who wanted to make more money selling stuff there but were rejected.
When Apple refuses to let apps in that users would like to have, though? It just sends a stronger message that they might want to switch to an Android based phone handset or tablet. So whatever .... Apple's choice.
I second this!!!
If Apple can't review, then it's just a conduit for whatever other companies want to do:
- Porn
- Web links to asking for payments to game additions
- Crippled trial versions
- etc
If you want quality, you can't have un-reviewed content.
For all of you who hate the integrated eco-system (i.e. walled garden) you're using the wrong OS.
The AirPods are new as of yesterday. I've been thinking about returning them.
IDK - doing anything but loving (or appearing to love) a gift seems so wrong to me. What good possibly comes out of doing anything else? Which is greater, my love for my wife or my dislike of Apple? It's not a question at all, and it'd be a sad life if it were.
They allow them because they all have to use the same rendering engine that Safari uses. WebKit. They can add their own bells and whistles on top of it but at the end of the day, even though it’s open source, the rendering engine is basically controlled by Apple. Not saying that’s right or wrong but that’s why they allow it.
I just looked at this because I wasn't familiar.
You're right. It's stupid that Roblox is allowed and xCloud, SteamLink, and Stadia aren't. The SteamLink and Stadia apps are crippled in iOS so, they are effectively useless.
I frankly don't care about Facebook, but if we're being consistent then we should include them in the list too.