The only reason they haven’t done it is greed. They could do it and still make money. They could increase prices to cover the small charges but don’t want to. They just want more more more.
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.
Microsoft Not Planning on Xbox Cloud Gaming App for iOS Because There's 'Not Room' for Monetization
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I understand it, the EU does not want Apple to be the only gatekeeper of what can be installed on an iOS device. So they want additional stores that are not controlled by Apple. It’s as simple as that.
And Apple said ok, but let’s make it really hard and really expensive. So if the intend is to allow for more (potentially profitable) stores, the EU could argue Apple is putting up roadblocks and will strike it all down, forcing Apple to come up with another plan.
And clearly, the Microsofts, Metas and Epiqs of this world have to say today Apple’s framework is unworkable to make their case.
That's what they should do, if you don't like the App Store, don't develop for it.
You will lose money of course, but once enough developers do it, the table will soon turn on Apple.
You will lose money of course, but once enough developers do it, the table will soon turn on Apple.
You are trying to make it seem like leaving the App Store will hurt Microsoft, it won't. The big three don't really need to be dependent upon app stores to promote themselves.
Also, Epic is infinitely smaller than Microsoft and a game developer for kids at that.
Game consoles are also heavily subsidized hardware that are sold for a loss, and the developers building games running on it get a plethora of services back from Microsoft in return, because unlike Apple, Microsoft actually has a continued cost providing services for these games, while Apple leaves apps to do all that work for themselves with no costs to them other than providing the download of these apps. Only superficially the same if you want to look at the 30% cost, but beyond that its laughable to compare the 2.
A 30% charge isn't a "small charge", especially not on a business that needs to do a ton of compute work on Microsoft's end and then stream it.
Because the DMA requires platforms to be more open by not gatekeeping. All Apple has done is basically build a second door, but only allow it to be opened if they approve of the person managing the door and only if that person pays them millions upon millions to have the permission to simply stand by that door, and then have every other person passing through that door also pay every time they do so. As pointed out by many commentators, companies, etc. that's the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do. If anything, they've become even worse at gatekeeping. And this wouldn't be the first time the EU calls them out on this (see the "but Safari on iOS, iPadOS and macOS are 3 different browsers" nonsense).
You see a lot of these weird narratives of "but this is exactly what the law requires Apple to do" despite the fact that Microsoft and Google both have to adhere to the same rules on Windows and Android respectively, yet neither has had to do anything that comes remotely to any of the disruptive absolute BS that Apple has been pulling with its App Store, with Safari, etc. So, to many on this forum here, maybe - and hear me out on this - Apple is just wrong and purposefully lying to you. You're advocating against your own self-interest. It's a good thing that the EU, Japan, UK and even the US start to catch on to this nonsense.
Last edited:
Basically they don't want to lose 30% to Apple with every sale.
Gruber did sum it up best, in my opinion. If the open model is such a winning one, then why can't you download Epic, Steam and the like on the Xbox?
Apple should be open, like Microsoft, but unlike Xbox which, on their hardware, can keep the walled garden..
Apple should be open, like Microsoft, but unlike Xbox which, on their hardware, can keep the walled garden..
The stores are not controlled by Apple. They only require notarisation of the apps (for security purpose, which explicitly is allowed by the legislation) and the core technology fee. Other than that third party developers are free to do whatever they want.
So the CTF, which is the only issue I see with Apple's solution. And that is a very simple fix as well. Also I have absolutely 0 interest in installing thousands App Stores on my phone. ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
Because each of these App Stores will have their own "support", "payment processing", etc. Where I know from other markets (Windows for example) that most stores are a lot worse in user support than the Apple App Store is. In both features and post sale support.
And that is purely based on my own experience with these stores and the Apple App Store. The only store with better support is the GoG store. And I don't see that one coming to iOS anytime soon.
I still don’t understand how Meta is allowed to sell Apps and Games inside the Meta Quest App without IAP through its own payment channel but Microsoft can’t do the same for Game Streaming?
You can even subscribe to Quest+ inside the app without involving Apple. Why can’t Spotify do the same? Because it’s music streaming? So weird and inconsistent
You can even subscribe to Quest+ inside the app without involving Apple. Why can’t Spotify do the same? Because it’s music streaming? So weird and inconsistent
Attachments
And it's all because of Apple's greed/compulson to control. In the end it will be Apple's doom.
You are comparing iOS (omnipotent platform) to Xbox store (marketplace for gaming). Please compare each category with the respective one of another company. iOS would be Windows, Xbox store would be Apple Arcade(maybe even App Store, but by a longshot only).
Microsoft does not take a cut from you for developing your apps for Windows, while Apple does twice (developer fee and forcing them to use the App Store with a ton of sanctions).
Both companies do code signature checks, both companies offer developers with a wide range of support. If you think Microsoft does not do enougn in that area (or less than Apple), feel free to back it up with actual data.
We are talking about developing for iOS, not for the App Store's gaming section. Big difference.
Apple has not contributed to the development of their app, and even still, thy already paid the developer's fee.
Xbox is a product of a niché market. iPhones are one of the only two things in the most dominating market.
This is not how civilization works unless you want people to run around armed to the teeth. Oh wait, that's already possible in the US and not an issue at all, right?
Psst, not too loud!
Somehow these folks think like the law doesn't apply to Apple.
Yes, and it made Apple be forced to reveal what data they hold on users. They didn't do that by themselves.
People would care about other marketplaces if Apple had no financial pull over them.
The commission already answered me that they did not at all approve this. So it will be indeed interesting to watch.
If a serial killer instead of directly stabbing the victim, pushes the victim into an area with sharp objects, they would technically not stabbed the person directly but forced it indirectly, resulting in the same criminal case, murder.
Apple can do things all they want but they are currently just gambling with legal and financial backlash.
Neither platform has even a tenth of what it needs to even get close to the gatekeeper specifications in order to be considered as dominant.
They aren't making any more money off of the app. They already developed one, and Apple refused to allow it for reasons no one has made clear other than "Apple didn't want to allow it", so why develop it again?
All you EU acolytes certainly know exactly how to develop, market and sell a phone that the people want, right? So why haven't you done it?
We are not acolytes just for following the laws we voted in.
profound misunderstanding perhaps even a complete non understanding of the entire issue from top to bottom
Now that Apple is allowing game streaming in the normal store, they don’t need the EU rules to release it as a native app.
He isn’t open to making the Xbox work like Windows, so not a whole lot of credibility in his words regardless of that.
He isn’t open to making the Xbox work like Windows, so not a whole lot of credibility in his words regardless of that.
See additional posts regarding revenue numbers which is what I was referencing
Exactly. This is all about money.
A reasonable model would be the Mac model - you want to go it alone you can for free and offer sideloading unsigned apps; you want access to the App Store you pay. The problem is no one wants to go it alone, they want free access to Apple's customer base.
Which covers basic developer service, sales are separate. Apple could very well just adjust the developer fee based on d/ls of apps that aren't 100% free. Start at 99 and ramp up to millions.
If it generated enough additional revenue, yes. Although Apple isn't charging for cloud based games; as I understand the fee, MS would pay for d/ls of their app once per year.
How so, MS has a nonolpoly and so does Sony, if you apply the logic used as to why Apple has a monopoly.
Xbox is a gaming platform, windows is not limited to that and thus applies to gatekeeping. MS complies with the law on both ends since xBox does not qualify in the slightest for gatekeeping.
Developing and publishing was always free until Apple introduced the $99 model. Up until then, only publishing on the App Store was paid by a $100 fee, and it also included a code review.
Apple also had to adjust the 30% cut in the EU because they had to lay open costs, and it became obvious that they were just dishing out words of services which were empty, otherwise they wouldn't have had to adjust.
You want to argue that notarization costs Apple? Even if you do, any developer who's not paying the $99 costs Apple more notarization "power consumption" since they are notarizing all their apps every 7 days all over again.
Apple’s “Core Technology Fee” is much more generous than what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo charge developers to sell physical games for PlayStation/Xbox/Switch. Either this EU ruling should apply to all companies operating walled-gardens or it should get struck down.