UK Looks to Trigger Regulation Process to Target Apple's Cloud Gaming and Browser Engine Restrictions

[LV426]

Here in the EU we have the worst possibile web experience due to these endless, stupid nag screens. It’s a nightmare.

Now, let’s ruin all the rest, block by block.

There are any number of content blockers that are pretty good at weeding out cookie consent forms. I rarely see them these days.

 

[hagar]

They should start anticipating things, or they'd prove more and more that they're not qualified to make these decisions for tech users.

If they can't anticipate things and keep slapping more and more regulations on to everything it's going to ruin things for everyone, and not just in EU.

This is not about not anticipating things. This is about assuming companies will do the right thing. Which obviously they don’t. And then they have to correct. Without government rules a lot of companies act like irresponsible children.

 

[hagar]

While I definitely don’t agree with this games in the cloud ban, I do not understand why Apple shouldn’t be in control of its platform.

How is this different than Nintendo or Xbox, both closed systems?

Apple was clear upfront 10+ years ago: customers and developers knew what they were getting themselves into.

 

[dan110]

Apple's policy of blocking cloud gaming is stupid, monopolistic, and just asking to be regulated away. And the attention it brings means regulation on browser engines is also likely. Which is a shame. Because, while restricting browser engines is still monopolistic within the iOS ecosystem, it's basically the only reason there's still a viable competitor to Chromium in the browser market as a whole. As soon as we see Chromium on iOS, developers will stop testing on Safari, and we'll see '90s style 'works best in Chrome' badges on web sites. Or it won't even be acknowledged. Things will just gradually stop working in Safari, and when you contact support you'll just get a reply from a bot telling you to 'use Chrome'.

And with that, the open, standards based internet will be dead.

I saw this coming back during the headphone jack fiasco. That's when I KNEW it was time to look for other digital/technology options. This is from someone who had everything Apple sold and would buy anything with an Apple logo. Now that I've been on Android, iOS seems like a gilded cage.

 

[gnipgnop]

I think you're wrong with this statement. Microsoft loose money on every Xbox Series X sold - gaming subscriptions are potentially a way to greatly open up the market (and control things). The prospect of saving >£400 by not buying a console and just subscriptions to an App on the TV/Apple TV/iPad etc and get access to a wide library of games sounds pretty good for me. Yes, at present not all games are part of the cloud libraries, but you can bet that as people start to move over to subscriptions, studios will have no choice. As a further sweetener, the studios will no longer loose money to the second hand/reselling market. I see an equivalence to Apple putting the Apple TV app on smart TVs which is costing them Apple TV sales, but gaining them wider Apple TV+ subscriptions.

I see your statement a lot like people in 2010 saying that they would keep on buying CDs because they sound better than streaming services.

What you're talking about isn't even remotely a reality today. Mobile cloud gaming is limited to 720p resolution. That was an Xbox 360 standard from three generations ago. Windows/Xbox gaming is supposed to be about the bleeding edge of technology (4K! Raytracing!), not traveling back to 2005. And the game libraries ARE predominantly older titles. MS has no real intent to make iPhone/iPad the equivalent game access as Windows/Xbox.

 

[gnipgnop]

While I definitely don’t agree with this games in the cloud ban, I do not understand why Apple shouldn’t be in control of its platform.

There is no "ban". Cloud gaming runs through the browser on iOS and the people that use those browser services always seem to claim that they work well enough. That's the Catch 22 to all the complaints: if you say the browser version sucks then it calls into question whether the technology is really ready for prime time, but if you say the browser version is good...then it calls into question the complaints about it not being in the App Store.

 

[jakey rolling]

I don’t get this at all.

Yes. You don't.

 

[bluecoast]

Wow I'm getting major flashbacks to Y2K re. Microsoft and Internet Explorer. What goes around comes around.

Why are people on this thread who worship 'the market' not keen to let Safari and webkit fully compete in this regard if they believe in the market so much?

Would they also argue that the only browser engine on MacOS should be webkit as 'Apple built the platform and can dictate what goes on on it? Ditto software downloads outside of the Mac App Store.

And Apple's attitude to cloud gaming stinks - it's obvious that their real objection is that they want to drive people to Apple Arcade and don't want any competition. Ditto they want to ensure that all games worth playing are native apps, distributed through the App Store and charged to Apple through the App Store.

 

[webkit]

I do not understand why Apple shouldn’t be in control of its platform.

It can depend on the type or level of control in question. Do you think it was unfair for the DOJ to sue Microsoft in the 1990s? MS was essentially being sued for trying to "control" their platform (Windows).

 

[gnipgnop]

And Apple's attitude to cloud gaming stinks - it's obvious that their real objection is that they want to drive people to Apple Arcade and don't want any competition. Ditto they want to ensure that all games worth playing are native apps, distributed through the App Store and charged to Apple through the App Store.

Question: if Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo and all the AAA game developers wanted to compete in the App Store, why were there so few AAA game ports to iOS?

Your comment about Apple Arcade doesn't really make any sense. Games that are sold through the App Store ARE competition to Apple Arcade. And a company that had big bucks (like Microsoft or Epic or Sony or Nintendo) could create an Apple Arcade competitor that had iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/macOS native games too.

 

[gnipgnop]

It can depend on the type or level of control in question. Do you think it was unfair for the DOJ to sue Microsoft in the 1990s? MS was essentially being sued for trying to "control" their platform (Windows).

MS in the 90s wasn't selling Windows exclusively on their own hardware. Apple chose the console style platform for iPhone/iPad (make your own hardware, control the software) and Google did not for Android. Previously, the console style platform was not considered anti-competitive. Nintendo even won a major court case where their control of the software on their own hardware platform was being challenged as an antitrust violation.

 

[I7guy]

Imagine there being only 2 department stores in New York City. You can go to 1 department store or the other. However, only one department store sells shirts, and only shirts made by themselves. The other department store doesn’t have shirts, but sells their own pants brand. Each department store also requires membership and it a significant cost to join the other department store.

The problem with phones aren’t the devices themselves, but the operating systems. There are only 2 real competitors in the phone OS market and they can wield a significant amount of power over consumers and creators. For example, Apple only allows the WebKit browser engine. Why? This limits innovation and user choice If you go with Apple.

EDIT: I’m not saying I agree or disagree with government intervention. I understand it, but I don’t understand it well enough to offer a confident opinion on the matter.

Imagine nobody is stopping anybody from opening a department store in NYC. Consumers like the original stores to such a degree they won’t shop in the third department store. The first two stores have had the fortune of being popular with consumers. So NYC decides to regulate department store by draconian rules about how the ironical department stores will be able to move forward with their business.

 

[gnipgnop]

Imagine nobody is stopping anybody from opening a department store in NYC. Consumers like the original stores to such a degree they won’t shop in the third department store.

This is much closer to the truth. Consumers had access to phones made by Nokia, Blackberry, Ericsson etc. and they stopped buying them once they used iOS and Android phones. Major companies like Microsoft and Amazon were not prevented from competing. They just didn't attract enough customers with their smartphone products.

 

[CalMin]

Yes. You don't.

Well argued.

 

[jakey rolling]

Imagine nobody is stopping anybody from opening a department store in NYC. Consumers like the original stores to such a degree they won’t shop in the third department store. The first two stores have had the fortune of being popular with consumers. So NYC decides to regulate department store by draconian rules about how the ironical department stores will be able to move forward with their business.

If you follow your own analogy to its logical end (and beginning, really), you'd realize that the only reason why such a situation would exist in NYC would be because there would be some incredibly expensive barrier to entry which causes all other department stores from being competitive. In such an environment, you can bet your arse that those two department stores would face regulation.

 

[jakey rolling]

Well argued.

Actual ignorance warrants an argument. Willful ignorance doesn't.

 

[jayducharme]

Is not their fault Windows phone tanked.

MS, BlackBerry, Palm — they all had their own unique mobile OS and they’ve all vanished. Consumers wanted something different. Is that the fault of Apple and Google?

 

[gnipgnop]

If you follow your own analogy to its logical end (and beginning, really), you'd realize that the only reason why such a situation would exist in NYC would be because there would be some incredibly expensive barrier to entry which causes all other department stores from being competitive. In such an environment, you can bet your arse that those two department stores would face regulation.

Are you really trying to argue that Apple and Google are the only two companies that have the money to create an operating system? Because it's really the OS itself that seems to be the target. Apple created an OS that was exclusively for their own hardware (very risky, very expensive). Google did not. They significantly lowered the expense/risk by only doing the OS initially.

 

[webkit]

MS in the 90s wasn't selling Windows exclusively on their own hardware.

Why would that necessarily matter as we are specifically talking about the OS platform, at least as far as the browser engine issue.

Besides, Apple isn't the only retailer of iPhones (which includes iOS) as you can also buy them through AT&T, Best Buy, etc. Compaq and others may have been restricted on the browsers they could include on Windows-based products they sold but AT&T and others are being restricted on the browsers (browser engines in this case) they can include on iOS-based products they sell.

 

[webkit]

MS, BlackBerry, Palm — they all had their own unique mobile OS and they’ve all vanished. Consumers wanted something different. Is that the fault of Apple and Google?

The issue is not about Apple and Google achieving dominant share (unless it was achieved "illegally") but rather how they may be using that dominance in anticompetitive ways, as defined/determined by regulators.

 

[I7guy]

If you follow your own analogy to its logical end (and beginning, really), you'd realize that the only reason why such a situation would exist in NYC would be because there would be some incredibly expensive barrier to entry which causes all other department stores from being competitive. In such an environment, you can bet your arse that those two department stores would face regulation.

It is not the governments job regulate the free market where new comers are favored. Want to do business in NYC get some money. Else maybe the government could enact laws so I can buy Central Park for Pennys in the dollar and have them fund a real estate project.

 

[bluecoast]

Question: if Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo and all the AAA game developers wanted to compete in the App Store, why were there so few AAA game ports to iOS?

Your comment about Apple Arcade doesn't really make any sense. Games that are sold through the App Store ARE competition to Apple Arcade. And a company that had big bucks (like Microsoft or Epic or Sony or Nintendo) could create an Apple Arcade competitor that had iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/macOS native games too.

I'm not much of gamer - I play games on my 2017 intel MBP so I'm unfortunately limited (thank you for your sympathy ) - so a disclaimer here.

I would guess that we don't see many AAA game ports to iOS etc. because that platform is known for casual gaming and the freemium model.

However, Apple can see the time coming where you sign up to an Xbox game pass and play AAA - or casual - games via the iPad or Apple TV (or virtually any other device).

Apple doesn't get any money here. Neither do the game devs have to develop or distribute for iOS. They just have to make sure that their games run on VM copies of Windows / Xbox in the cloud.

Yes, these games are mostly AAA titles, but MS - or anyone else - could easily distribute lots platform agnostic touch friendly games also (I think that they do already provide a fair few).

That's why Apple doesn't like cloud gaming.

And finally, games on the App Store are competing with Apple Arcade true - but Apple is aiming to build up the Netflix of casual gaming i.e. where people start to think 'why would I buy one game for $4.99 when I could pay Apple the same each month and get 100+ great games - and it doesn't want anyone else to be able to do that on its platform.

It would be a very similar situation if Apple didn't want Spotify or Netflix to able to compete fairly against their own products (Apple Music and TV+) on iOS in TV/Movies, and Music and made things difficult for them until the regulators had to step in?

Oh, wait...

 

[gnipgnop]

Why would that necessarily matter as we are specifically talking about the OS platform, at least as far as the browser engine issue.

It matters because it's different than the MS situation in the 90s. MS was trying to control a 3rd party hardware market, similar to how Google is trying to control a 3rd party hardware market with Android. Apple is only trying to control 1st party hardware...which is the console model. That's why companies like Epic have twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to claim that the console model is somehow anticompetitive if the hardware makes a profit and has general computing applications. That, of course, ignores the fact that consoles do make a profit in many cases and certainly could support general computing applications IF the company making them allowed it.

 

[jakey rolling]

It is not the governments job regulate the free market where new comers are favored.

It's so cute that you think this like it has never been something the government has done (and has had to do) for several centuries now.

 

[gnipgnop]

I would guess that we don't see many AAA game ports to iOS etc. because that platform is known for casual gaming and the freemium model.

And finally, games on the App Store are competing with Apple Arcade true - but Apple is aiming to build up the Netflix of casual gaming i.e. where people start to think 'why would I buy one game for $4.99 when I could pay Apple the same each month and get 100+ great games - and it doesn't want anyone else to be able to do that on its platform.

Your first comment is admitting the truth: the AAA gaming market didn't really view iOS as a competitor. That's why the mobile cloud gaming services being sold on iOS via the browser are NOT really a parallel to the experience of a contemporary Windows gaming PC or bleeding edge gaming console. iOS is just a supplemental market for AAA oriented companies. The idea that it's somehow critical to getting those games to consumers has no basis in reality.

As for your second comment, if deciding whether to spend $5 on an individual game or Apple Arcade subscription was really much of a barrier then the entire PC/console gaming industry would never have been viable.