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

[CarlJ]

Because they have to pay royalties to Apple in a sense (the Core Technology Fee) even through a Marketplace.|

Not a fan of Microsoft or their CEO, but they're right.

Doesn't that work out to half a Euro per year, for new installs, on a platform where Microsoft is having customers pay tens of dollars a month to subscribe to their games (Xbox Live, or whatever)? Apple built the platform, and is paying continuously to develop the software, the APIs/frameworks, maintain the App Store, etc. - it seems reasonable that Apple require payment for use of all that (and no, the $99/yr developer membership doesn't even begin to cover that - Apple previously funded those things through the commission - if you bypass the commission, the money has to come from somewhere, those things aren't just powered by magic).

 

[djphat2000]

Microsoft is paying for their own server costs.

Yes. And depending on the App price they could pay Apple .50 euros per download over the first 1 million. They could end up paying Apple (based on the price of the app). Less than 1% (anything costing 49.99 euro or more). The more expensive the app, the cheaper the cut Apple would get. Apple is allowed to collect a fee in the EU even if the app does not come through Apple's AppStore.

 

[Funny Apple Man]

It sucks that they won't make a dedicated app for it. At least the web app is there and works fine, but I wish the streaming quality is better.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

What do you mean there’s no room for monetization?

Release the app and have people subscribe to Game Pass outside of it so you don’t forfeit 30% of it to Apple

That’s what Spotify, Netflix and Amazon do - I don’t understand why Game Pass would be any different

 

[Zest28]

Can you install Google Play or Apple Store on the Xbox?

And consoles are basically PC's that are walled down like hell.

In the past, the US army was using gaming consoles for super computing. But that is not possible anymore due to Sony and Microsoft closing down everything.

 

[diamond.g]

What do you mean there’s no room for monetization?

Release the app and have people subscribe to Game Pass outside of it so you don’t forfeit 30% of it to Apple

That’s what Spotify, Netflix and Amazon do - I don’t understand why Game Pass would be any different

In app purchases would have to be disabled, "somehow". Otherwise Apple want's their 30%.

Can you install Google Play or Apple Store on the Xbox?

And consoles are basically PC's that are walled down like hell.

In the past, the US army was using gaming consoles for super computing. But that is not possible anymore due to Sony and Microsoft closing down everything.

I'm not sure PS3's counted as walled down PC's. PS4/PS5 never had OtherOS support.

 

[FaustsHausUK]

I'm not sure PS3's counted as walled down PC's. PS4/PS5 never had OtherOS support.

The PS3 was built around a custom PowerPC processor called Cell, which was also used in a supercomputer developed by IBM (along with Sony and Toshiba, they formed the alliance that developed Cell). PowerPC is, of course, the same instruction set architecture Macs used before the switch to Intel (and the subsequent switch to ARM-based Apple silicon).

The Xbox 360 was also based on a custom PowerPC processor. Its successors, as well as the PS4, PS5, Steam Deck and several Steam Deck-likes, are based on AMD SoCs - some custom, some off the shelf - that are functionally no different from what you would find in mainstream laptops. They're basically PCs.

On the Nintendo side, they too used custom PowerPC processors from the GameCube through to the Wii U. Their handhelds were all low-powered, ARM-based chips - the Switch is a much nicer, NVidia-provided Tegra X1 (X1+ in newer models). As we know, ARM's instruction set architecture is under the hood in every device Apple sells now - the A series chips and their more powerful M series siblings. If a Mac is a "PC", a Switch is basically a PC.

This is all a dramatic oversimplification, but phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and games consoles all share a tremendous amount of DNA now. Whether it's their hardware architecture, the fact many games consoles run modified versions of Linux, or the overlap in tasks they perform. The differences are increasingly arbitrary based on intended use. For that reason, if the App Store needs to be broken up, so do the games consoles' respective digital marketplaces.

 

[diamond.g]

The PS3 was built around a custom PowerPC processor called Cell, which was also used in a supercomputer developed by IBM (along with Sony and Toshiba, they formed the alliance that developed Cell). PowerPC is, of course, the same instruction set architecture Macs used before the switch to Intel (and the subsequent switch to ARM-based Apple silicon).

The Xbox 360 was also based on a custom PowerPC processor. Its successors, as well as the PS4, PS5, Steam Deck and several Steam Deck-likes, are based on AMD SoCs - some custom, some off the shelf - that are functionally no different from what you would find in mainstream laptops. They're basically PCs.

On the Nintendo side, they too used custom PowerPC processors from the GameCube through to the Wii U. Their handhelds were all low-powered, ARM-based chips - the Switch is a much nicer, NVidia-provided Tegra X1 (X1+ in newer models). As we know, ARM's instruction set architecture is under the hood in every device Apple sells now - the A series chips and their more powerful M series siblings. If a Mac is a "PC", a Switch is basically a PC.

This is all a dramatic oversimplification, but phones, tablets, laptops, desktops and games consoles all share a tremendous amount of DNA now. Whether it's their hardware architecture, the fact many games consoles run modified versions of Linux, or the overlap in tasks they perform. The differences are increasingly arbitrary based on intended use. For that reason, if the App Store needs to be broken up, so do the games consoles' respective digital marketplaces.

I'd be happy for console digital markets to go away. Back to physical media!!!

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

In app purchases would have to be disabled, "somehow". Otherwise Apple want's their 30%.

That should be trivial to achieve, design the UI to be just “here’s your games, what do you want to play?”

 

[diamond.g]

That should be trivial to achieve, design the UI to be just “here’s your games, what do you want to play?”

I'm not sure that is the case. Forza Horizon is playable via xCloud and you can for sure buy stuff via micro-transactions. Since it is an online game how do you separate out that part yet still allow folks to play the same game?

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

I'm not sure that is the case. Forza Horizon is playable via xCloud and you can for sure buy stuff via micro-transactions. Since it is an online game how do you separate out that part yet still allow folks to play the same game?

As far as I know all the buy buttons in game do is open what’s essentially a web view so you can proceed with the purchase

It would be awkward but definitely possible to stop that flow and instead display a “sorry, in game purchases are not available on iOS”

I can definitely see that being a problem for management and why they haven’t bothered doing it tho

 

[wbeasley]

I'd be happy for console digital markets to go away. Back to physical media!!!

Physical media still are controlled and payments made to the console owner... all you do is inconvenience people with your proposal...

 

[diamond.g]

Physical media still are controlled and payments made to the console owner... all you do is inconvenience people with your proposal...

Physical media allows for used game sales, which you cannot do with digital sales (clearly). It is a huge reason MS wanted to change the game sales model back with the Xbox One, so they could get a cut of used game sales as well as new game sales.

MS has effectively gotten their wish with the Series S and it looks like the next system may not even have a disc drive (assuming one comes out at all).

In the end, MS wants to make money from xCloud via subscriptions and from in app purchases. They would make substantially less if they dropped in app purchases, and they don't want to give Apple a cut of a process Apple has nothing to do with.

 

[wbeasley]

Physical media allows for used game sales, which you cannot do with digital sales (clearly). It is a huge reason MS wanted to change the game sales model back with the Xbox One, so they could get a cut of used game sales as well as new game sales.

MS has effectively gotten their wish with the Series S and it looks like the next system may not even have a disc drive (assuming one comes out at all).

In the end, MS wants to make money from xCloud via subscriptions and from in app purchases. They would make substantially less if they dropped in app purchases, and they don't want to give Apple a cut of a process Apple has nothing to do with.

everyone goes on about in app purchases. there are enough apps you buy outside and the app is free.

Office 365 needs a sub for better features.
Netflix. Spotify. Adobe.

Microsoft (and everyone else whinging) can just do the same.
If you have something to sell or subscribe to, people will find you.
These arent little companies noone has heard of.

If M$ and Sony and Nintendo push for total electronic downloads, the retail games store will disappear.
And given most consoles are bought there... it's a no win situation.
There will always be some form on instore game purchase with a kick back to the store.
Probably more than 30% (or 15%) if you knew.
They are all just trying to get a free ride from app store currently.

Wanna bet the EU alt app store for iPhones is a failure?

They need to tread a fine line too.
If EU force Apple to open iPhones, who next? The nice cushy control they have and kick backs could easily disappear up a pirate mast in a wink. Dangerous game they are playing. Paying Apple a commission could be the least expensive way to keep paying customers in the long run

 

[wbeasley]

Yes. And depending on the App price they could pay Apple .50 euros per download over the first 1 million. They could end up paying Apple (based on the price of the app). Less than 1% (anything costing 49.99 euro or more). The more expensive the app, the cheaper the cut Apple would get. Apple is allowed to collect a fee in the EU even if the app does not come through Apple's AppStore.

How is that happening? Do you mean the technology access fee the proposed alt app stores have to pay?

 

[djphat2000]

How is that happening? Do you mean the technology access fee the proposed alt app stores have to pay?

Correct. Even if the app doesn't go through (directly) any Apple store. They still have the right to collect that .50 euro fee via the Alt store. So say Microsoft makes a store for the iPhone. Anything they sell via that store, Apple can collect that fee after the first 1 million downloads. According to the rules Apple created.

Since you still need to be a developer under Apple. And the apps still need approval. It's not via download on a website (AKA side loading). It has to go through an approved "store".

 

[djphat2000]

Paying Apple a commission could be the least expensive way to keep paying customers in the long run

It is most likely the best reason to have stuck with the AppStore. All your sales are "sales". And nothing is stolen. Getting a 100% of 70% is better than anything under 100% (stock) and getting 50% cut (after the store takes its cut).
But, they find ways to complain.

 

[wbeasley]

Correct. Even if the app doesn't go through (directly) any Apple store. They still have the right to collect that .50 euro fee via the Alt store. So say Microsoft makes a store for the iPhone. Anything they sell via that store, Apple can collect that fee after the first 1 million downloads. According to the rules Apple created.

Since you still need to be a developer under Apple. And the apps still need approval. It's not via download on a website (AKA side loading). It has to go through an approved "store".

So effectively it's no different at all to the consoles where you develop games and pay a licencing fee regardless of how it is sold. (except for the second hand market where the original purchaser paid in their sale value).

Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft still want your game to stick to their standard packaging/artwork to "help customers identify the right item". The app still needs to be checked it doesnt break the hardware or cause system issues. Same same. Except the EU seem to want to treat Apple differently to consoles for their closed environment.

People are just getting bent out of shape. Manufactured outrage.
No matter what you buy or where, there are costs. Business is profit driven.

A person sewing fairy dresses in Bali gets paid 10 cents for an item that sells in a chain store for $25 or more.
The cost of goods and what you pay are chewed up along the distribution channel as everyone wants to make a profit on their work. That's commerce. But people here seem to think everything should be free.

They'll argue they can create apps (with the free tools Apple supplies) and should be able to distribute them to anyone directly or via another store without checks or fees. "We can do this on PCs or Macs". So do it on PCs and Macs. You can't do it on consoles. If you want to do that on phones, you have Android ones. Do it. Make your money there. Except the iPhone market is lucrative and untapped by those who want to circumvent the well-known rules. No game or regular app gets knocked back for playing by the rules. Millions of devs are making a good living our of selling on the app store. Billions have been paid out by Apple to these people. The little app devs arent complaining. They get tools, support, reviews, marketing, distribution and payments handled for them. A whole environment they could never do on their own.

The big companies complaining want to pay no fees for the infrastructure that Apple built and the customer base they grew. They already can put a free app up and let outside subscribed users access their game or media. They get a pretty fair deal currently for free.

All those subscription cards for Netflix and games at supermarkets and games shops and office supply/whitegoods retailers all cost these companies a commission.

What Apple is asking is no different: a cut for being part of the user activity process.

 

[djphat2000]

So effectively it's no different at all to the consoles where you develop games and pay a licencing fee regardless of how it is sold. (except for the second hand market where the original purchaser paid in their sale value).

Basically yes. You're free to develop for any platform. You pay or maybe even you don't for the tools/software needed. But, you ultimately do pay to sell it on someone else's "store".

Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft still want your game to stick to their standard packaging/artwork to "help customers identify the right item". The app still needs to be checked it doesnt break the hardware or cause system issues. Same same. Except the EU seem to want to treat Apple differently to consoles for their closed environment.

They don't' seem to care much about games "yet". They let Microsoft buy Activision. And they already own Id. At some point they could own enough to fully control game development and distribution. This is generally the wrong way to "compete". While Apple will enter a market that may or may not be dominated by another company or companies. They compete with a better (they hope and believe) product. When the iPhone came out, they didn't buy Nokia or Black Berry. They made a phone that competed with what was already out there.

People are just getting bent out of shape. Manufactured outrage.

YES!

No matter what you buy or where, there are costs. Business is profit driven.

YES!!

A person sewing fairy dresses in Bali gets paid 10 cents for an item that sells in a chain store for $25 or more.
The cost of goods and what you pay are chewed up along the distribution channel as everyone wants to make a profit on their work. That's commerce. But people here seem to think everything should be free.

YES!!! And people also forget that 10 cents in Bali (for example) goes further in Bali than in the US. There are cost of living differences across US states and of course other countries. The reason global trade even works is due to the fact that there are wide price differences between where something is made and where something is ultimately sold. China used to be the less expensive "high quality" manufacture globally. They are making more money now than in the past which drives up the price of manufacturing in China. So exports cost more. Some of this is being off-set by moving into Vietnam or the Philippines and India. Where cost of living is still low, and quality of labor is high enough to meet the needs of said product. There is no free lunch, only less expensive.

They'll argue they can create apps (with the free tools Apple supplies) and should be able to distribute them to anyone directly or via another store without checks or fees.

Because they think "falsely", that Apple:
1) has enough money already.
2) everything should just be "open" and "interoperable".
3) they don't like Apple because they are "too big".
4) they don't like "closed" anythings and view it as a hinderance to their mobility.
5) they feel iPhones are no different thank a computer. You should be able to treat them the same.

I'm sure there are more. Just some examples.

"We can do this on PCs or Macs". So do it on PCs and Macs. You can't do it on consoles. If you want to do that on phones, you have Android ones. Do it. Make your money there. Except the iPhone market is lucrative and untapped by those who want to circumvent the well-known rules. No game or regular app gets knocked back for playing by the rules. Millions of devs are making a good living out of selling on the app store. Billions have been paid out by Apple to these people. The little app devs arent complaining. They get tools, support, reviews, marketing, distribution and payments handled for them. A whole environment they could never do on their own.

100%

The big companies complaining want to pay no fees for the infrastructure that Apple built and the customer base they grew. They already can put a free app up and let outside subscribed users access their game or media. They get a pretty fair deal currently for free.

They just want "more". In world where costs are rising. This "fee" is an area to save some money to add to the bottom line. It's just that and nothing more. It's business and not personal. If they can get away with forcing Apple to lower the fees or find a work around (courts) to lower their costs. They will try. Can't blame them. Just wish people would stop believing that it will end up saving them money on VBUCKS. EPIC doesn't care about you. They care about themselves. If they cared about you, they would not have left the platform.

All those subscription cards for Netflix and games at supermarkets and games shops and office supply/whitegoods retailers all cost these companies a commission.

YUP!

What Apple is asking is no different: a cut for being part of the user activity process.

Correct, which is why ultimately. At least in the US. I don't expect any changes happening to stop this. It would have ripple effects to other areas not involved in this issue. Some of these government policy officials have not thought everything through. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last.

 

[wbeasley]

Basically yes. You're free to develop for any platform. You pay or maybe even you don't for the tools/software needed. But, you ultimately do pay to sell it on someone else's "store".

They don't' seem to care much about games "yet". They let Microsoft buy Activision. And they already own Id. At some point they could own enough to fully control game development and distribution. This is generally the wrong way to "compete". While Apple will enter a market that may or may not be dominated by another company or companies. They compete with a better (they hope and believe) product. When the iPhone came out, they didn't buy Nokia or Black Berry. They made a phone that competed with what was already out there.

YES!

YES!!

YES!!! And people also forget that 10 cents in Bali (for example) goes further in Bali than in the US. There are cost of living differences across US states and of course other countries. The reason global trade even works is due to the fact that there are wide price differences between where something is made and where something is ultimately sold. China used to be the less expensive "high quality" manufacture globally. They are making more money now than in the past which drives up the price of manufacturing in China. So exports cost more. Some of this is being off-set by moving into Vietnam or the Philippines and India. Where cost of living is still low, and quality of labor is high enough to meet the needs of said product. There is no free lunch, only less expensive.

Because they think "falsely", that Apple:
1) has enough money already.
2) everything should just be "open" and "interoperable".
3) they don't like Apple because they are "too big".
4) they don't like "closed" anythings and view it as a hinderance to their mobility.
5) they feel iPhones are no different thank a computer. You should be able to treat them the same.

I'm sure there are more. Just some examples.

100%

They just want "more". In world where costs are rising. This "fee" is an area to save some money to add to the bottom line. It's just that and nothing more. It's business and not personal. If they can get away with forcing Apple to lower the fees or find a work around (courts) to lower their costs. They will try. Can't blame them. Just wish people would stop believing that it will end up saving them money on VBUCKS. EPIC doesn't care about you. They care about themselves. If they cared about you, they would not have left the platform.

YUP!

Correct, which is why ultimately. At least in the US. I don't expect any changes happening to stop this. It would have ripple effects to other areas not involved in this issue. Some of these government policy officials have not thought everything through. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last.

Seems a lot of people dont get that business is profit driven.
They think it is a charity ... and for their benefit only. That's greedy.

 

[treacher]

Yeah! BTW that's why I don't block or skip ads (I actually sit through them), I fully believe in profit over all things, even if it inconveniences me. It's kinda my dogma.

 

[wbeasley]

Yeah! BTW that's why I don't block or skip ads (I actually sit through them), I fully believe in profit over all things, even if it inconveniences me. It's kinda my dogma.

again you forgot your sarcasm tag...

 

[macfacts]

Leave it to Microsoft to claim that they wouldn't be able to make money providing a gaming service to over a billion well-off customers...

Those "well off" customers are complaining about $2.99 fees for 1password https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...codes-and-simplified-sign-in-process.2429706/

 

[Zest28]

Those "well off" customers are complaining about $2.99 fees for 1password https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...codes-and-simplified-sign-in-process.2429706/

In some iOS games, you have ”micro transactions” of even $50.000. There are iOS gamers who spend this type of money.

So now you understand why Epic doesn’t want to pay 30% commission to Apple.

 

[jlc1978]

In some iOS games, you have ”micro transactions” of even $50.000. There are iOS gamers who spend this type of money.

So now you understand why Epic doesn’t want to pay 30% commission to Apple.

and yet EPIC wants access to teh app store. How about they abandon the app store in the EU and make everyone go to their store for the app. In that case, they can avoid that fee and if Apple allows full sideloading not get it signed and pay zero to Apple. I suspect that is not their preferred endgame; if they want to be on the App Store then Apple should be allowed to charge for that access.