Microsoft Not Planning on Xbox Cloud Gaming App for iOS Because There's 'Not Room' for Monetization

[jlc1978]

Good look as a carrier exiting your own territory and reaching the customers of the market you just exited. Someone else will fill that gap gladly.

If yo can't make a profit you exit the market; if another can they will enter. If not one can make a profit the market will not be served, as many US smaller cities found out when airlines were deregulated.

I agree that they can charge whatever they want for their marketplace. I disagree on their move to still not comply with the law and prevent free access.

The law does not require free access to Apple's App Store.

They just added an inception App Store with another set of fees, thus not allowing free access.

Which is allowed.

One is the platform, another one is a marketplace. They know that, they have their own tech commissions.

The EU has regulated the platform and Apple has set the way they intend to comply with the regulation. With sideloading, Apple no longer controls who can enter the market; assuming it plays out like the Mac market. Sideloading would remove Apple's control over what apps can be added to an iPhone.

Lightning's design flaw was its impossiblility to ugrade the protocol with the hardware it has.

As long as Apple decided no upgrade was warranted there is no issue. Lighting worked just fine, I suspect, for all but a small segment of the market that was not worth the costs of upgrading to meet their needs.

Again, just a middlefinger from Apple towards the environment. Petty dollar behaviour for yet another toll on the environment from a self-declared friend to the environment.

USB-C was dictated by the EU; although I suspect Apple was moving there anyway.

And they need to let go of that.

Why The law doesn't require that.

Notarization was always free.

It was part of the developer fee, which Apple can change.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

Kudos for comparing a gaming console with neglicible influence over a niché hobby with a smartphone, the #1 device of all humans, with the most massive industry and market behind it, where only two OS' rule them all.

And hundreds of manufacturers. Do you have a citation that a smartphone is the #1 device. And those devices depend on using cellular air waves, which is a monopolistic industry. As far as two operating systems, that vendors pay $1 to google to use an already existing operating system than developing their own is not relevant, imo.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

No, the $99 is a membership fee for the developer programme.

Not unusual to pay membership fees.

No. if you sell apps outside of the app store, macOS will try to prevent users from running it unless you pony up for the developer fee. It's not only unusual, but Apple is the only software company that does this.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Those that run around and say things like "malicious compliance" or "spirit of the law" have little understanding of law. If Apple is complying with the letter of the law, they are in compliance. Nothing more. Nothing less

Those that say compliance is only measured against a fixed and finite "letter of the law" haven't read the law:

"The measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance with those Articles shall be effective in achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the relevant obligation"

"The Commission may adopt an implementing act, specifying the measures that the gatekeeper concerned is to implement in order to effectively comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 6 and 7"

"The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to supplement this Regulation with regard to the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. Those delegated acts shall be based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 19 that has identified the need to keep those obligations up to date in order to address practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or that are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6."

 

[gaximus]

Of course they are comparable. It's one category (gaming) inside the App Store vs outside the App Store.

They show a reference and Apple is afraid that reference comes true in other categories which is why they locked it down.

So you want to compare Candy Crush(a game) Inside the AppStore vs Batman Arkham City(a game) outside the AppStore? I would bet good money that Candy crush has more downloads.

You can’t just compare categories that are similar. You’d have to compare a set of games that availed on both AppStore and outside App Store and see is the “average user” is willing to download that game, outside the AppStore.

Look at Microsoft store, if a user wants a game that’s on both Microsoft game store or steam, they will choose the MS store, as it’s already on their system, backed by MS, and they don’t have to install a 3rd party marketplace (provided they a steam acount already, and they wouldn’t because I’m still referring to Average Users)

You still have fail to provide any links to any data.

 

[visualseed]

Those that say that compliance it only measured against "letter of the law" haven't read the law.

"The measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance with those Articles shall be effective in achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the relevant obligation"

"The Commission may adopt an implementing act, specifying the measures that the gatekeeper concerned is to implement in order to effectively comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 6 and 7"

"The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to supplement this Regulation with regard to the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. Those delegated acts shall be based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 19 that has identified the need to keep those obligations up to date in order to address practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or that are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6."

Obviously, you have not read what you just copied and pasted because it supports my position, not yours. Yes, the commission has the power to use delegated acts, to try to uphold the "spirit" of the act, but they have very strict limits and the DMA was already written in a way to very narrowly live in its own bubble and not stray into other areas. A delegated act cannot change the essential elements defined in the original legislative act. The things that many are taking exception with Apple on are things well established in law. If compliance to the letter does not meet this law's objectives, there is little headroom in this case to change it.

At some point it's going to come down to the key issue being the reasonable core technology fee is the impediment to the EC achieving its goal. Then, someone with a straight face is going to have to argue that they thought reasonable would be "free." From that moment on, you are in the realm of IP rights and other general laws that the DMA does not supersede.

 

[AppliedMicro]

because it supports my position, not yours

It does not.

A delegated act cannot change the essential elements defined in the original legislative act

It doesn't need to - but it can amend the original act.

- Article 6 mandates allowing installation of third-party software applications or stores.
- Article 8 (1) states that "the measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance with those Articles shall be effective in achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the relevant obligation".
- Article 8 (2) allows the commission to adopt implementing act that specify measures a gatekeeper is to implement to ensure compliant.
- Article 12 allows for delegated acts "specifying the manner in which the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 are to be performed by gatekeepers in order to ensure effective compliance with those obligations" and "adding further conditions where an obligation imposes certain conditions on the behaviour of a gatekeeper" ... "to address practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or that are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6"

👉 Carrying free-to-download apps for free on their own store, while making the same financially unviable to third-party application store operators? Sounds pretty unfair to me.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be free - but the legislation gives the commission enough leeway to address that.

Limiting a company from charging for its IP and services for political points would be akin to unlawful nationalization

The DMA includes some provisions that mandate "free of charge" access for business users. Literally.

👉 They are in the Digital Markets Act (so law) - whatever "akin to unlawful nationalisation" you call that.

Then, someone with a straight face is going to have to argue that they thought reasonable would be "free."

No.

See above: they're unfairly steering developers towards staying on old business terms by not charging the "core technology fee" for apps on their own Store. It doesn't mean that the core technology fee needs to be free / abandoned.

 

[0339327]

The USB-C port in the latest Apple lineup would like a word with you.

Um, a minor hardware change, that many Apple fans wanted, is far different from changing the entire way a company does business. And, many Apple customers, including myself, do not want the iPhone opened up for exploitation. Yes, Apple does hold the strings and makes money with it, but at least the iPhone is relatively secure from worms, bots and viruses.

Hell yes I said overblown. I've heard the fearmongering about gaming the majority of my life. And there might be, I don't know, a global pandemic recently that might have something to do with that.

Sorry. I disagree. I know that many people enjoy violent gaming and other "it's not real" pushes on violent fantasy. History has shown that while not every gamer turns out to be a violent person, the change of our entertainment to be that of video and fantasy and "feel good" does not promote mental heath. I'm not saying this stuff should be illegal, we live in a free society, I'm just saying that I think it's gone too far.

 

[visualseed]

See above: they're unfairly steering developers towards staying on old business terms by not charging the "core technology fee" for apps on their own Store. It doesn't mean that the core technology fee needs to be free / abandoned.

Maybe you should go back and read Apple's new EU terms:

• Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Maybe you should go back and read Apple's new EU terms:

• Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.

What are you getting at?

It‘s obviously not so (underlying) „core“ a fee, when they‘re basically forcing developers developers of free-to-download apps to remain on their own App Store (on old terms) - where they do not charge that fee.

It‘s like an infrastructure-owning telco charging MVNOs per minute/MB for something that they‘re giving away to end users for free in large quantity.

 

[I7guy]

What are you getting at?

It‘s obviously not so (underlying) „core“ a fee, when they‘re basically forcing developers developers of free-to-download apps to remain on their own App Store (on old terms) - where they do not charge that fee.

It‘s like an infrastructure-owning telco charging MVNOs per minute/MB for something that they‘re giving away to end users for free in large quantity.

Bad analogy. Cell carriers are public infrastructure with rights to airwaves bought from monopolies.

 

[visualseed]

What are you getting at?

It‘s obviously not so (underlying) „core“ a fee, when they‘re basically forcing developers developers of free-to-download apps to remain on their own App Store (on old terms) - where they do not charge that fee.

It‘s like an infrastructure-owning telco charging MVNOs per minute/MB for something that they‘re giving away to end users for free in large quantity.

Apple is charging EU developers the same core technology fees if they are in Apple's AppStore or an alternative app marketplace. For all the noise everyone has made about that I would think they could have checked the actual facts first.

 

[visualseed]

It‘s like an infrastructure-owning telco charging MVNOs per minute/MB for something that they‘re giving away to end users for free in large quantity.

Telcom exec here: We absolutely do that. MVNOs get so many other breaks by not owning and maintaining their infrastructure that they can actually pay a premium for minutes/bandwidth and still sell it to customers at a competitive discount.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple is charging EU developers the same core technology fees if they are in Apple's AppStore or an alternative app marketplace

…not when remaining on their current business terms:

„Developers can choose to remain on the App Store’s current business terms or adopt the new business terms for iOS apps in the EU.“

 

[jlc1978]

Carrying free-to-download apps for free on their own store, while making the same financially unviable to third-party application store operators? Sounds pretty unfair to me.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be free - but the legislation gives the commission enough leeway to address that.

From the way I read Apple's new terms, free apps are basically unaffected since a developer could stay under the old terms and be free on the App Store and release a sideloaded free version on other stores for no CTF. That already happens in MacOS when developers want an app with features not on the App Store but also be on the App Store.

I suspect Apple will not charge a CTF for truly free apps.

The DMA includes some provisions that mandate "free of charge" access for business users. Literally.

To certain types of data, not the App Store or for Apple services, as I read the DMA.

 

[jlc1978]

Telcom exec here: We absolutely do that. MVNOs get so many other breaks by not owning and maintaining their infrastructure that they can actually pay a premium for minutes/bandwidth and still sell it to customers at a competitive discount.

To bring it in comparison to Apple, Telco's also own MVNOs that compete with other MVNOs; much like Apple has apps and services that compete with 3rd party apps and services.

Further, Apple pays for infrastructure others own to deliver the App Store and other services, much like telcos often pay a tower company to place an antenna on their tower and use the backhaul.

 

[AppliedMicro]

From the way I read Apple's new terms, free apps are basically unaffected since a developer could stay under the old terms and be free on the App Store and release a sideloaded free version on other stores for no CTF

No, they can't.

"Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or payment processing."

I suspect Apple will not charge a CTF for truly free apps.

They will.

The exception is only for education, government and non-profit institutions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To bring it in comparison to Apple, Telco's also own MVNOs that compete with other MVNOs; much like Apple has apps and services that compete with 3rd party apps and services.

...and many countries have introduced regulations that provide for mandatory wholesale network access for (unaffiliated) MVNOs.

That doesn't means MNOs can charge rates as they please, receive a 30% commission of MVNO revenue, veto devices, services or communication offered by MVNOs.

 

[jlc1978]

No, they can't.

"Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or payment processing."

They will.

The exception is only for education, government and non-profit institutions.

That will only apply for developers that use App Store Connect for distribution; which is why I have said true sideloading is the ultimate solution since it would free developers from using Apple services via notarized apps. It would be much like today's Mac environment, where a developer can be on the App Store and pay Apple (or not) as well as distribute independently.

Developer Connect, from what I can gather isn't really sideloading as much as allowing developers to use Apple's infrastructure to make apps available on 3rd party stores. If I understand it correctly, Apple still allows developer to use them for app related things, even if it's from a 3rd party app.

I suspect Apple would have a hard time justifying, under DMA rules, dropping a developer who also implements a sideloaded app that completely bypasses Apple's infrastructure. I also suspect many developers, especially smaller ones, will stick with current terms as 3rd party distribution will not be as attractive as the App Store.

 

[4743913]

meh, I can already play forza horizon 5 and my other favorite steam games on my iPad with GeForce Now..

 

[Delarock]

Thats true but just on lower tier subscription and withou keyboard and mosue support…..

 

[bgillander]

Question for you, Bodhisattva: Microsoft is a for profit corporation in a capitalist economy. Would you have them develop products for which they don't see a profit potential? Why would they do that? One of the 8 pillars of enlightenment is perspective, which is missing in your remarks. Namaste and good Karma!

I didn’t realize Buddha was into capitalism and profit. You are correct, Microsoft and Apple are both for profit corporations, so I guess it makes sense Microsoft wouldn’t introduce an app for which they didn’t see profit potential and Apple would try to replace any lost commissions to keep their profits from falling. I wasn’t sure I was happy about either’s behaviour before, but your logic now brings me serenity, so thank you for that perspective.

 

[victorvictoria]

I didn’t realize Buddha was into capitalism and profit. You are correct, Microsoft and Apple are both for profit corporations, so I guess it makes sense Microsoft wouldn’t introduce an app for which they didn’t see profit potential and Apple would try to replace any lost commissions to keep their profits from falling. I wasn’t sure I was happy about either’s behaviour before, but your logic now brings me serenity, so thank you for that perspective.

Now that's perspective! Contrary to what the Supreme Court ruled in "Citizens United", corporations are not people, and should not be judged on human criteria. They also ruled that money is free speech.

 

[wirefire]

This is all about how to monetize your platform. years ago Nintendo (haha) had they harsh agreements with developers. you make the game, we produce how many we want, force you to use our manufacturing, ETC. Apple wants to know how to monetize their platform. imposing a 30% tax was fine, until it wasn't. so the new "tax" is 50 cents per user. if that doesn't pass in the EU they are just going to slap a massive fee on getting you app approved sand signed. it doesn't matter, Apple is going to get their money. IF the EU thinks that anything they pass is going to make apple allow people to monetize their platform and not get a cut, it aint gonna happen.

 

[truthsteve]

Sounds like someone needs to look up the date first and read the EU commission's reaction. Note: The date is 7 March.

Can't handle it because you don't like the law and don't want Apple to get sued?

what? did you really just jump into the conversation and not understand what was said