No, they are not. They’re selling an interactive video stream of content running/residing on a remote server, just like Netflix.
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 Was Willing to Bring Xbox-Exclusive Games to iPhone via xCloud
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How can it be "hostile" or "logically absurd" when iOS users get access to the exact same service through internet/browser? Apple views the App Store as their own property and subject to their own rules. They don't view the internet as their own property or subject to their rules. Seems rather simple.
It’s hostile to make users and developers jump through stupid hoops to do something that should be simple.
It’s logically absurd to claim that one streaming video feed is somehow different from another streaming video feed.
Games are applications. Movies are media files. The App Store has a rule about applications being submitted for review, but not media files.
Microsoft didn't need to jump through any hoops. They could have done what Amazon did with Luna and focused on internet/browser sales from the start.
The only application that actually runs on the iOS device was submitted for review.
Apple rejected it, because it was a threat to their iOS gaming profits.
They then came up with an idiotic and wholly arbitrary rationale for doing so, which you have apparently decided to defend until your dying breath.
Right, which is why Microsoft's app couldn't pass App Store review. They were selling access to gaming applications via the App Store without submitting them for App Store review. That's why they switched to the internet/browser sales. Apple doesn't view the internet as their own store. They view the App Store as their own store.
I wonder how MS would have been able to do that, send an Xbox to Apple and each game for review?
If we are discussing the differences between Netflix and what MIcrosoft has proposed, that is my opinion on the difference.
You, of course, are free to purchase (as has always been the case) any product or service you want.
Microsoft would need to port the games to iOS. That's how other PC and console based games are sold through the App Store.
Either the 3rd party would need to port them, or they wouldn't be offered via the App Store subscription.
And, realistically, MS themselves probably never intended to do any porting at all. How many of their 1st party games had they previously ported to iOS from PC or Xbox? Zero. They were looking for a huge exception/exemption from App Store rules or free publicity about their iOS streaming service via the "controversy" of it being rejected.
Last edited:
Ooooh I see what you are saying, these xCloud games should be native games not streamed. That is a controversial take.
This is so odd, they could have increaesed revenue, kept a per game % fee and probably kept the deal secret so other devs wouldn't complain. I get that Apple has enough money where millions more from xbox games wouldn't bother them either way, it just seems like a terrible business decision. Now those same xbox games are STILL their for their users via the web, but Apple doesn't get squat. And it's not like Apple's crappy, "mini" games for subscription is working out that well from what I understand.
They could use any money they got from Microsoft to pay off the Chinese government some more. Missed opportunities.
Actually no. It is all streaming, just like Netflix. The only application run is the xcloud app which allows you to stream content just like netflix app which allows you to stream content. Literally no difference. Both are just portals to streaming media. Also Netflix let's you play their mobile games through the app so....
The only way an app can pass App Store review is if it's native. Other game subscription services in the App Store (like Game Club or the new Netflix gaming service) have to do it.
Netflix submits every game via the App Store. People focus on the "stream" part, but that doesn't actually matter. What matters is that the subscription is offering gaming applications instead of simply media files. Gaming applications accessed through an App Store app have to be reviewed by the App Store, which also means they have to be native to iOS in order to pass review.
Don't want to port to iOS? Don't offer the service through an app in the App Store. Do it through the internet/browser.
Last edited:
No. It's not an application. Media files always have some level of interactivity. Example: instead of looking at album art, you can choose to look at lyrics. That's interactive.
Aren't what? The service they wanted to get an exemption/exception for on the App Store is now available on iOS through the internet/browser.
What about youtube when you are watching a game played. Should youtube have a separate app for each video of a game? And before you say games are different because you control them, bendersnatch on Netflix you control with a controller (remote control) but its just streaming video just like xcloud which all it does is stream a video which you control with a controller. Netflix, youtube and xcloud are really just remote desktop clients that let you have access to the company's server just like how you said a normal remote desktop app is OK still. And when you say RD is ok because its stuff you have already purchased then that can't be right either. When I run a remote desktop and bring word up which I only payed for a license by subscription, how is that different any different? Also if you really want to get into it Remote desktop apps shouldn't be allowed in the store because I can remote desktop from my phone to computer, open the Xbox app and stream a game through that (of course latency would be hell but it's literally the same thing
Bandersnatch is just an example of interacting with a media file. The controller part is irrelevant. People interacted with VHS tapes back in the 1980s via controller. Digital media on your phone is always going to have some type of interactivity, so that can't be used to claim it's the same as a gaming application.
What Apple is focused on is whether or not the app that is being provided through the App Store is selling additional applications to the user. Gaming subscriptions are selling additional applications. Remote desktop clients are not. YouTube is not.