Microsoft Was Willing to Bring Xbox-Exclusive Games to iPhone via xCloud

[Nuno Lopes]

The above is of course, your interpretation.

Yes of course. The article says specifically that at the core of Apple problem was how it would deal with in app purchases … or should I say … in stream purchases.

Videos aren't executed streams?

What is an executable stream? Never hearth of it such concept. Streams are excutable as file. You should write a white paper about the novelty. Are you referring to interactive streams? These are not executables. Like any stream client the app just projects the “images” and captures user input that is that sent to the server … that in turn executes and projects back again.

Not the way the rules are written. Videos aren't executed streams? Are they? I'm not saying I agree with Apple here, but it's their house their rules.

Again, don’t know what are executable streams. I’ve seen interactive videos … yes, both streamed and non stream. The basic, pause, play … so on and so forth.

Did they say that? I must have missed it.

My parody around:

Emails also suggest that the deal fell through because Apple was concerned about how in-app purchases in Microsoft's games would work. "Their proposal for IAPs is still that they process all IAPs on their existing system and settle up with us (either in real-time or monthly)," wrote App Store games manager Mark Grimm in an email describing the negotiations with Microsoft.

Was your ”executable stream” a tech parody also?

No business in their right mind treats all customers equally. All customers should be treated fairly, but giving the "exact same" treatment to every customer of a consumer oriented mass distribution company will not happen

Interesting because you also said …

Sounds like Apple is treating all customers equally. Just in a way that is not inviting. Microsoft says: "Here let me make us some money". Apple says: "No thanks".

Is your point then to sstablish a new technical concept, “executable streams” equating to executables such as apps? Materially / Technically that is way off reality. I say new, because interactive streams is a well known concept while executable streams … I think you may have something there to register as new IP.

Honestely you don’t need to go that path to justify Apple charging a digital stream of any kind in an app. The company already charges in app sales for anything digital assets on top of apps. Streams is just another third party digital asset that can be sold and Apple charge a commission on top.

PS: Of course an app is a software program that run on an OS built by Apple and licensed by iPhone and iPad owners to do so (licensed Apple IP). Didn’t the user licensed the OS to run Apps? I mean, how can user use an iPhone without being able to run apps? I’m now puzzled.

FROM iOS EULA: Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to use the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded Device

So its grants the user the right to run apps considering iOS was built also for that matter right?

Yet it seams that the user licenses the OS to be able run the Apps he wants, and than the dev licenses again the OS for the user to run the Apps he wants that happened to be the devs. Classic double …

Now I understand if you argued that the dev needs to license Apple tech to build the App and pay for it.… but not to run it as such ability is already licensed by the device user. This is the standard practice in the industry. Actually a pretty standard practice governing digital properties. You don’t license a song, a player and than license the ability to play the song, that would be abusive. What would be a song without being able to be played, and what would be a player without being able to play songs? Ether, nothingness, zilch, nada. Would be paying for nada … than again abnotmal profitable businesses have appeared here and there around such concepts … usually disbanded in courts.

I would also understand that the dev may need to pay Apple as they distribute the builds (App Store) as per ecossystem policy, sell the App if you wish.. or even pay Apple to promote their App in the App Store. Now imposing charges around other kinds of kinds of digital assets, streams of any kind, specific data, files and all, considering that Apple offers no platform for it of course its abuse. Once in App, its all provided, created, invested by the App builder / developers, being run as per the EULA agreed by the user and the device bought by the user … what is is there requiring payment to Apple … nada … yet … there is the Wall.

Yet this nonsense is being perpetuated …

 

[derekamoss]

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.

What if I remote into my desktop from my phone and by an app online? I can pull up a bunch of websites selling additional applications as well.

 

[I7guy]

Yes of course. The article says specifically that at the core of Apple problem was how it would deal with in app purchases … or should I say … in stream purchases.



What is an executable stream. Never hearth of it. You should write a white paper about the novelty. Are you referring to interactive streams? These are not executables. Like any stream client the app just projects the “images” and captures user input that is that sent to the server … that in turn executes and projects back again.



Again, don’t know what are executable streams. I’ve seen interactive videos … yes, both streamed and non stream. The basic, pause, play … so on and so forth.



My parody around:



Was your ”executable stream” a tech parody also?



Interesting because you also said …



But is now your point? Establish a new technical concept, “executable streams” equating to executables such as apps? Materially / Technically that is way off reality. I say new, because interactive streams is a well known concept.

Honestely you don’t need to go that path to justify putting a stream in an app to be charged. Apple does not need to do that to justify its options. It already charges in app sales for anything digital assets on top of apps. Streams is just another third party digital asset that can be sold and Apple charge a commission on top.

Executable stream = java for example.

 

[diamond.g]

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.

Okay, what about Roblox? Why don't each of the the games that run in Roblox have to be approved as a separate app?

 

[KindJamz]

Neither is a game, when it’s being streamed. It’s not running on the local device. If you looked at the network traffic it would just look like a compressed video stream, same as a movie on Netflix.

Dont argue with diehard apple fans. They can’t be reasoned with. Only thing they understand is apple is god. In their eyes at least. Kinda sad.

 

[gnipgnop]

What if I remote into my desktop from my phone and by an app online? I can pull up a bunch of websites selling additional applications as well.

Companies are free to offer iOS users access to gaming subscriptions via internet/browser. That's not subject to
App Store rules because it's not offered via the App Store.

 

[gnipgnop]

Okay, what about Roblox? Why don't each of the the games that run in Roblox have to be approved as a separate app?

Probably because they're not sold separately? My understanding is that the game has an editor that allows users to create the games you're talking about.

 

[Cayden]

Probably because they're not sold separately? My understanding is that the game has an editor that allows users to create the games you're talking about.

xCloud games are also not sold separately. To gain access to xCloud you must have an Xbox GamePass Ultimate subscription. There is no other way to access an xCloud application than through the game pass subscription

 

[derekamoss]

Companies are free to offer iOS users access to gaming subscriptions via internet/browser. That's not subject to
App Store rules because it's not offered via the App Store.

You didn't even answer the question. How is a remote desktop client any different then XCloud when I can remote to my desktop, pull up the xbox app and the run xcloud through that all on my phone or once again when I pull up a browser and buy a game and download it to that computer all using an app certified by apple on the app store. There is no difference.
1. each app is feeding you a stream of content (movies, games or apps)
2.On all apps, you dont actually own anything but just have a license to view Netflix - Movies, Xcloud - Games, Remote Desktop -Windows, movies apps, games.
3. All apps are just a portal to each company's servers.
4. Each can require an outside device to use (xbox -controller, remote desktop - mouse, Netflix (Bendersnatch) - Remote control.
5. All are streaming content that they dont actually own but are licensed too.
etc
etc
etc....

 

[gnipgnop]

xCloud games are also not sold separately. To gain access to xCloud you must have an Xbox GamePass Ultimate subscription. There is no other way to access an xCloud application than through the game pass subscription

Microsoft's subscription provides access to a library of individual games that were professionally developed and originally sold as stand-alone titles. Roblox provides access to an in-game editor that allows users of the app to create Roblox games...key word being "user". In other words, things that don't exist when the app is originally sold.

 

[WoodNUFC]

You didn't even answer the question. How is a remote desktop client any different then XCloud when I can remote to my desktop, pull up the xbox app and the run xcloud through that all on my phone or once again when I pull up a browser and buy a game and download it to that computer all using an app certified by apple on the app store. There is no difference.
1. each app is feeding you a stream of content (movies, games or apps)
2.On all apps, you dont actually own anything but just have a license to view Netflix - Movies, Xcloud - Games, Remote Desktop -Windows, movies apps, games.
3. All apps are just a portal to each company's servers.
4. Each can require an outside device to use (xbox -controller, remote desktop - mouse, Netflix (Bendersnatch) - Remote control.
5. All are streaming content that they dont actually own but are licensed too.
etc
etc
etc....

They might have a point if XCloud was a service that allowed you to download games to play locally--trying to bypass the app store. But it isn't. It's a service you pay for outside the app store that grants you access to the video streams of that content.

The logic that XCloud is somehow different to Netflix/Hulu or remote desktop apps doesn't hold, because they are all doing the same thing--granting you access to streaming video.

 

[gnipgnop]

You didn't even answer the question. How is a remote desktop client any different then XCloud

It's different because you don't need a remote desktop client to to buy/use an internet based game streaming service. You can just launch a browser. Thus, Apple isn't going to care that you can do it through the remote app too.

 

[hans1972]

I do think Apple is missing opportunity here. MS has been playing well with almost everyone which is a business strategy that is working well for them. Apple is still struggling with gaming (though improving) and this would be a huge win. With this iOS would be the ultimate mobile gaming platform and that means $$$. This was a good middle ground between what epic and apple were both fighting for and while the App Store rules would have had to change I think it would have been worth it.

How would Apple make more money with this?
Certainly no services revenue would come to Apple.

 

[derekamoss]

They might have a point if XCloud was a service that allowed you to download games to play locally--trying to bypass the app store. But it isn't. It's a service you pay for outside the app store that grants you access to the video streams of that content.

The logic that XCloud is somehow different to Netflix/Hulu or remote desktop apps doesn't hold, because they are all doing the same thing--granting you access to streaming video.

Were you agreeing, or arguing a point? Sorry Confused. ?

 

[gnipgnop]

The logic that XCloud is somehow different to Netflix/Hulu or remote desktop apps doesn't hold, because they are all doing the same thing--granting you access to streaming video.

The streaming part is irrelevant. The relevant part is whether it's an application being streamed or a media file. Media files don't require individual App Store review. Applications do.

 

[WoodNUFC]

Were you agreeing, or arguing a point? Sorry Confused. ?

My apologies. I'm agreeing with you. There is no difference between XCloud and other approved methods to access streaming video content be it Netflix or a Remote Desktop app.

 

[WoodNUFC]

The streaming part is irrelevant. The relevant part is whether it's an application being streamed or a media file. Media files don't require individual App Store review. Applications do.

It's only irrelevant because you say so. It's no different than other approved methods for accessing remote content.

 

[gnipgnop]

My apologies. I'm agreeing with you. There is no difference between XCloud and other approved methods to access streaming video content be it Netflix or a Remote Desktop app.

There is an obvious difference: Netflix/Hulu/Spotify stream media files and Microsoft's gaming service is streaming applications.

 

[gnipgnop]

It's only irrelevant because you say so. It's no different than other approved methods for accessing remote content.

No, it's because Apple requires applications being provided through an App Store app to be individually reviewed. Example: Netflix recently launched their own gaming service that can be accessed through an App Store app. All of the games in that service ARE reviewed individually by the App Store. Same for the Game Club subscription service.

 

[diamond.g]

There is an obvious difference: Netflix/Hulu/Spotify stream media files and Microsoft's gaming service is streaming applications.

Interactive media files, like Bandersnatch

 

[derekamoss]

My apologies. I'm agreeing with you. There is no difference between XCloud and other approved methods to access streaming video content be it Netflix or a Remote Desktop app.

All good and I like your avatar! Huge Football (soccer) fan myself.

 

[hans1972]

A lot like Netflix, only catch is the content is interactive. (which I will make an argument that Netflix is "interactive" if necessary.). Also I see little here that adversely impacts Apple. Unless you consider a competitor to Apple Arcade with is a joke.

Apple do get revenue from video streaming services if they allow subscription and payment in the app.

Here Microsoft gets all the money and it undermines the everything should be an app mantra.

 

[hans1972]

It's only irrelevant because you say so. It's no different than other approved methods for accessing remote content.

It's because Apple says so.

It is very common to have different standards for different types of content, even in society.

 

[gnipgnop]

Interactive media files, like Bandersnatch

Interactivity is standard for media files. That isn't anything new. Scrubbing is interactive. Switching to lyrics is interactive. Turning captions on/off is interactive. Bandersnatch was just a kind of interactivity that people were not as familiar with, although things like Dragon's Lair back in the 1980's were very similar, i.e., you're watching media and then providing interactions.

 

[derekamoss]

No, it's because Apple requires applications being provided through an App Store app to be individually reviewed. Example: Netflix recently launched their own gaming service that can be accessed through an App Store app. All of the games in that service ARE reviewed individually by the App Store. Same for the Game Club subscription service.

If its, because and what's were candy nuts, we would all be having a merry christmas!