Microsoft Begins Testing xCloud Game Streaming Service in Browser for iOS and iPadOS

[genovelle]

You know it's ok for MacRumors to express an opinion on this matter rather than just quote Microsoft's. Requiring individual games in the xCloud to be submitted and bought through the App Store is a bad user experience. Requiring that these games be individually vetted by Apple is particularly laughable. Apple is pissing against the wind here and the customers are getting splashed as the result.

I think that is great that it would be required if they are to be on the App Store. If they can use a browser outside of Apple APIs and bring their own customers, Apple does not care. That means they are not using Apple’s resources for free, but Apple gets the benefit of their customers having access to their gaming platform.

While Apple makes money from games, it casual gamers and they will use what’s on the platform. Serious gamers have never been Apple’s customers, so this would just icing on the cake.

 

[nouvejetzt]

no in Chrome please, it already takes 99% of the memory

 

[mzeb]

Vertical Monopoly?? You need to tell me which crack you smoke man!

Seriously? Are you questioning the term or that Apple might be one?

 

[mzeb]

Vertical monopoly? It is called a platform. You can control your own platform without being a monopoly. Again, if you have a platform, you can dictate the game played within in. You can't just take elements of a platform and say it needs to be blown open. A grocery store has a vertical "monopoly" over its deli section in the above argument. Gas stations have a monopoly over the pumps, Universities have a monopoly over the lecturers. Flawed logic to take an element of a platform (hardware/location/service) and say that one element needs to be open to everyone to play. The game everyone can play is competing in the platform.

Now some companies take the approach that a more open (less proprietary) platform is a competitive advantage, but that doesn't make it the law of the land all must abide by or be judged against.

Monopoly generically means to have exclusive possession or control. If you build a platform, you naturally have exclusive control, and how much you relinquish is strategically up to you. Where anti-trust enters is when you seek to control a market. Saying the iPhone is its own market is negating its natural distinction as a platform. This should only occur when both are one in the same, meaning said platform is the only game in town, or largely the only game in town. This is why Target isn't a monopoly over its toiletry section. They have exclusive control over their platform, but there are other games in town. The iPhone exercises exclusive control over its platform too, but like Target, there are other games in town.

Summary: There are other games in town, and the logic falls flat (in all directions you want to spin it).

You make some good points but there are many competing universities that provide service of the lectures and if they were all the same that would be horizontal, not vertical.
There are two games in the mobile business, Android and iOS. You cannot make money as an app developer any other way at this point. This is where the problem lies.
If you want to play in the Apple world you MUST use their market. And their vertical integration, while it has done wonderful things technically, makes it so the only alternative is to switch to another mobile operating system if you want another market place and lose access to all the customers on iOS.
In the physical world I can just switch to selling goods in a different market. I can still access those customers. I can just tell the, it is a different address to come shop at my place.
If Apple did not charge app developers (or a nominal fee for the service rendered) I would agree with you completely. It is the fact that Apple has a lock in to their platform that makes this line fuzzy.
I'm no lawyer, but I could make the argument that if they have a platform with a market that allows for no competing markets that could be construed as anti-competitive.
A similar issue came up for MS in their anti trust stuff with windows as a platform in the early 2000s. The only reason they won it was because they were able to show windows was no longer turning a large profit. Apple is definitely turning a profit.
Another way to think of it is this: does Apple have the ability to charge developers whatever they like and there is no option for those developers to keep their clients if they can't afford to keep their business running? If Apple chose to take 80% of App sales what could devs do? Redeveloping for Android is a costly option a small dev might not have.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Vertical Monopoly?? You need to tell me which crack you smoke man!

Vertical Monopoly is a way of trying to say “Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store”. Since the second doesn’t make sense on it’s face, they use the first to make you THINK it makes sense

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is why I think Apple are reluctant to allow game streaming right now. I have a feeling that their plan involves the M series Macs, M Series Apple TV's and iOS devices coupled with Apple Arcade. Being able to move from living room to Mac to iPad/ iPhone and back again with full continuity. Given that Apple stated in the "State of The Union" address that the thing they were most excited about is their custom GPU's, I think we'll be seeing performance high enough for AAA games in coming hardware.

This is an interesting point. Introduce what “low/high end gaming” will be with the M1. Even do it in a way that cuts out anything non-M1 (or provides lower fidelity because of course it does) and go forward from there.

There are two games in the mobile business, Android and iOS. You cannot make money as an app developer any other way at this point. This is where the problem lies.

Isn’t... isn’t xCloud like... LITERALLY showing how mobile developers can make money?

In the physical world I can just switch to selling goods in a different market. I can still access those customers. I can just tell the, it is a different address to come shop at my place.

You can also tell your beta testers, “Hey, this xCloud thing you’ve been testing, it’s going to be via Safari in the future because we don’t like the way Apple’s doing things. Should be ready in a few weeks or so.”

I'm no lawyer, but I could make the argument that if they have a platform with a market that allows for no competing markets that could be construed as anti-competitive.

Oh, anyone can “make the argument” that Apple should not have control over the thing they created. There are a LOT of arguments that could be made. That doesn’t mean they’d stand up to legal scrutiny, though.

 

[BuffaloTF]

You make some good points but there are many competing universities that provide service of the lectures and if they were all the same that would be horizontal, not vertical.
There are two games in the mobile business, Android and iOS. You cannot make money as an app developer any other way at this point. This is where the problem lies.
If you want to play in the Apple world you MUST use their market. And their vertical integration, while it has done wonderful things technically, makes it so the only alternative is to switch to another mobile operating system if you want another market place and lose access to all the customers on iOS.
In the physical world I can just switch to selling goods in a different market. I can still access those customers. I can just tell the, it is a different address to come shop at my place.
If Apple did not charge app developers (or a nominal fee for the service rendered) I would agree with you completely. It is the fact that Apple has a lock in to their platform that makes this line fuzzy.
I'm no lawyer, but I could make the argument that if they have a platform with a market that allows for no competing markets that could be construed as anti-competitive.
A similar issue came up for MS in their anti trust stuff with windows as a platform in the early 2000s. The only reason they won it was because they were able to show windows was no longer turning a large profit. Apple is definitely turning a profit.
Another way to think of it is this: does Apple have the ability to charge developers whatever they like and there is no option for those developers to keep their clients if they can't afford to keep their business running? If Apple chose to take 80% of App sales what could devs do? Redeveloping for Android is a costly option a small dev might not have.

There's literally no such thing as a vertical monopoly. By expanding vertically, you're opening yourself up for MORE competition in the new lines of business you create.

You state that to buy an Apple device means you must use their market. Correct. You can not have a monopoly on products you, yourself, create. The Market is "smartphones"... not Apple devices, not iPhones. Of course Apple has a monopoly on Apple products, it's THEIR OWN product. Just like Samsung has a monopoly on Galaxy smartphones, Samsung branded refrigerators, Samsung TVs.

You're no lawyer, or you'd know what you're trying to charge them with has already been tried in Elliott vs United Center. The lawsuit alleged that the United Center had a monopoly on food sales within the building by prohibiting people from bringing in food bought outside. "Food sales within the United Center" is not a relevant market, and to state that the building has a monopoly on snack food otherwise is insane. The same would hold true for restaurants that prohibit you from bringing in your own bottle of wine, or a movie theater from bringing in Sour Patch Kids. There's more than one restaurant, more than one movie theater, more than one smartphone. Even though every platform has identical policies to Apple, a 30% cut, there isn't even a trust argument unless you can prove collusion.

As for Microsoft, I assume you reference the IE lawsuit. The one that Microsoft won on first appeal -- which is why Microsoft still exists today. To prevent any further appeals, they opened up their APIs... APIs, which Apple offers as well.

 

[blackcrayon]

You know it's ok for MacRumors to express an opinion on this matter rather than just quote Microsoft's. Requiring individual games in the xCloud to be submitted and bought through the App Store is a bad user experience. Requiring that these games be individually vetted by Apple is particularly laughable. Apple is pissing against the wind here and the customers are getting splashed as the result.

I'm not in favor of Apple's rules here, but I personally don't see why having individual games in the app store is a bad experience, since that's the experience I've been using since the App store started. Perhaps it's inefficient in having to include each game's "wrapper"? But other than that I'm not seeing it.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

What is weird is epic. Instead of wasting all the money on lawyers and advertising. They could have gotten this via the browser by now.

Yes, let's just make our money while we ignore everything bad about the state of iOS and accept poor UX that holds the industry back. Great solution!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What is weird is epic. Instead of wasting all the money on lawyers and advertising. They could have gotten this via the browser by now.

Yes, they can no longer say that they can’t provide their solutions for Android (or iOS devices).

 

[emulator]

As a frustrated user of OneDrive, Teams, and countless other "almost-there-but-something-sucks" softwares from them, I feel supremely confident that Microsoft will find some way to mess this up.

Right because the xbox unit has so much to do with those apps. Pure tech decisions regarding xbox are not made at corporate level.

 

[mzeb]

There's literally no such thing as a vertical monopoly. By expanding vertically, you're opening yourself up for MORE competition in the new lines of business you create.

You state that to buy an Apple device means you must use their market. Correct. You can not have a monopoly on products you, yourself, create. The Market is "smartphones"... not Apple devices, not iPhones. Of course Apple has a monopoly on Apple products, it's THEIR OWN product. Just like Samsung has a monopoly on Galaxy smartphones, Samsung branded refrigerators, Samsung TVs.

You're no lawyer, or you'd know what you're trying to charge them with has already been tried in Elliott vs United Center. The lawsuit alleged that the United Center had a monopoly on food sales within the building by prohibiting people from bringing in food bought outside. "Food sales within the United Center" is not a relevant market, and to state that the building has a monopoly on snack food otherwise is insane. The same would hold true for restaurants that prohibit you from bringing in your own bottle of wine, or a movie theater from bringing in Sour Patch Kids. There's more than one restaurant, more than one movie theater, more than one smartphone. Even though every platform has identical policies to Apple, a 30% cut, there isn't even a trust argument unless you can prove collusion.

As for Microsoft, I assume you reference the IE lawsuit. The one that Microsoft won on first appeal -- which is why Microsoft still exists today. To prevent any further appeals, they opened up their APIs... APIs, which Apple offers as well.

The issue is not the iPhone itself. It is the market Apple created on top of it. Apple provides a service to developers, the App Store, and charges them for its use. And there is no other market. There is no other way to sell an app on iOS. There is no competing market.
Yes, many other markets charge the same 30%. But there are also competing markets. Look at the PC gaming space. Steam, GoG, Epic are all competing and Steam has had to respond to the lower rates GoG and Epic charge. Google and Amazon have competing markets on Android. And you can also side load or self publish if you like.
Every OS has competing markets except iOS. And there is no way to make a competing App Store. Apple can do this only because of their vertical integration.

 

[mzeb]

Vertical Monopoly is a way of trying to say “Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store”. Since the second doesn’t make sense on it’s face, they use the first to make you THINK it makes sense

Fair enough, but then what market place competes with the App Store to keep the fees Apple charges developers in check?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Fair enough, but then what market place competes with the App Store to keep the fees Apple charges developers in check?

What Apple App Store market place competes with the Apple App Store to keep Apple App Store fees Apple charges Apple developers in check? Apple keeps Apple in check, which is as it should be.

Tomorrow they could raise the fee to 80% and that’s between them and their developers. They could lower it to 3% and, again, if they can get folks to agree to signing on to that, that’s between them and the developers that sign on.

None of these cases will ever go forward because they insinuate that common legal agreements that all companies use “defining fees” for example, can be set by the government. No one is going to let that go forward.

 

[mzeb]

What Apple App Store market place competes with the Apple App Store to keep Apple App Store fees Apple charges Apple developers in check? Apple keeps Apple in check, which is as it should be.

Tomorrow they could raise the fee to 80% and that’s between them and their developers. They could lower it to 3% and, again, if they can get folks to agree to signing on to that, that’s between them and the developers that sign on.

None of these cases will ever go forward because they insinuate that common legal agreements that all companies use “defining fees” for example, can be set by the government. No one is going to let that go forward.

Can you explain further what you mean in your last paragraph? What is a "common legal agreement" and what could be set by the government? That isn't making sense as I read it.

 

[BuffaloTF]

The issue is not the iPhone itself. It is the market Apple created on top of it. Apple provides a service to developers, the App Store, and charges them for its use. And there is no other market. There is no other way to sell an app on iOS. There is no competing market.
Yes, many other markets charge the same 30%. But there are also competing markets. Look at the PC gaming space. Steam, GoG, Epic are all competing and Steam has had to respond to the lower rates GoG and Epic charge. Google and Amazon have competing markets on Android. And you can also side load or self publish if you like.
Every OS has competing markets except iOS. And there is no way to make a competing App Store. Apple can do this only because of their vertical integration.

...right. And you can't hold a monopoly on your own product, by definition. There's no other food services allowed in the United Center other than those they approve, a market created by the United Center. But you can leave the United Center and find food. There are plenty of competing markets for live entertainment, and plenty of other sources of food... as in, literally every other stadium and arena in the US, and every single restaurant.

There's plenty of other examples in case law with this same finding as Elliott v United Center. The market you create within your own product is not a relevant market.