What you say makes no sense since your mixing up streaming services vs single games. Should every movie and TV show in Netflix, every song on Apple Music or Spotify, or every Audiobook or Book in Apple Books or Amazon Kindle be available as a individual purchase through the iOS App Store? Consumer subscribe to streaming services because of the total package that the streaming service offers. As it stands, MS' policy, with respect to streaming services, for their App Store starting next is far more consumer and developer friendly than any consumer general purpose computing platform's app store out there, be it iOS, Android and macOS.
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.
Windows Microsoft Store Adds Support for Alternate App Stores Like Epic Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Xbox is not a general purpose computing platform like iOS, iPadOS, Windows, Android or macOS. It's a specialized platform designed to do one thing - consume entertainment content. If you want to make a proper comparison, compare Windows' App Store to macOS App Store.
They keep it closed for $$$ reasons, but underneath the xbox UI is just Windows, it's similar to how iOS is just macOS with a few different libraries and a different shell. Heck, the original Xbox development kit ran a modified version of Windows that still had the Windows UI.
That’s kinda what Apple tried to solve with their TV app, aggregating shows from the various streaming platforms that supported it. It’s great when it works (eg: I am able to launch Disney+ shows without having to first launch the app) but sadly, not enough companies are playing ball.
I don’t blame them, which then delves into my next point - that pro-consumer and developer-hostile moves are very often but two sides of the same coin (and vice versa). Apple has aggregated the best customers on iOS. This affluent user base gives Apple the leverage they need to dictate terms to developers (within limits), which in turn means a better experience (most of the time) for the end user.
Conversely, Microsoft has to actively court developers because they have no choice (and no leverage) in that matter, even if they don’t necessarily make sense from the perspective of the end user.
It’s the same whether we are talking about app stores or streaming services (did I miss something? I was responding to the article which talks about Microsoft allowing third party app stores in their own App Store, which to me makes zero sense).
It should but it won’t. Breaking with standard practice will only embolden govt. regulators, who will feel vindicated by this.
And really what have they done? Enabled loading Epic store ap from their storefront, it was easily downloadable from a browser, was it not?
Last edited:
Continuing the echo, as it also surprises me the applauses and fireworks over said MS “move”… what have they achieved exactly? We could already download the Epic Game store launcher, Steam store, run Netflix front through a browser and an infinite amount of other stores on Windows and macOS and Linux and everywhere.
Are they saying that now we can conveniently click on the download link on the Microsoft Store instead of www.epicgames.com? Is that it? Opening a web browser tab or window was too much work?
Are they saying that now we can conveniently click on the download link on the Microsoft Store instead of www.epicgames.com? Is that it? Opening a web browser tab or window was too much work?
I would also like to know - are the apps hosted on the Microsoft App Store subject to any form of scrutiny or vetting, or is it really just a free for all? If so, what's the point really?
IMHO, Microsoft showed the world what not to do to make a secure OS. The world already have a very secure OS model in the form of Unix before Microsoft's OSes.
They didn't actually do anything. The Epic store is already available on Windows (and MacOS), and the only thing Microsoft did, was putting that installer into the Windows Store.
That is such a load of crap. There is no differentiation at the core. Xbox is just a governed windows box. In fact it is not “just designed to do one thing - consume entertainment content”. I can play games, sure. I can stream video from Netflix, ok. And, by the way, this argument a couple years ago was “just games” not “just entertainment.”
Forgetting that, Xbox includes a fully functional web browser. So I can use that browser to access any content, including research for school or work. I can also access files on OneDrive and author content in Office.
Exactly how is Xbox, or any game console for that matter, different from a “general purpose computing device?”
When one is arguing to allow for side-loading in iOS with third party app stores.
No. What he is saying that a Google store could be required to install any Google app - Docs, YouTube, whatever. By the same token the Comcast store could be required to install any of their streaming apps - Peacock, syzygy, Bravo, etc.
No where is anyone saying anything about the individual content assets needing to individually listed on the App Store.
Perhaps you can explain that one. Xbox does not allow side loading any more than iOS does.
And the point being argued was that Xbox is different that any other so-called general purpose computing platform because it is designed only to allow the consumption of content. I offered that Xbox also allows creation of content directly and should, by that logic, also be a general purpose computing platform.
Well, the common strategy that I can see is that consoles, as they argue, are sold at a loss and therefore is OK for console makers to continue their 'monopoly' while Apple should not be allowed their 'monopoly' of iOS because they already make an obscene amount of money, and therefore should allow iOS to have third party app stores. The term 'general computing device' is also used as well, as the argument is that consoles are not 'general computing device' tho. they obviously are designed using the von Neumann architecture.
In any case, it's just bullet points for Apple critics to hammer Apple.
All they did is move the links to the 3rd party stores from their website to inside their App Store. Windows has always allowed sideloading and 3rd party app stores, so they have effectively changed nothing and yet still put out a press release. The only thing that potentially changed is you can find the 3rd party stores slightly faster if you are among the rare few who often searches the windows store. These apps already had all the elevations and permissions they needed to function as app stores, this is literally just a change in the source/trigger for the installer.
It isn’t comparable to either consoles or mobile phones or any other closed ecosystem at all really.
I get why people wanna make all sorts of comparisons. But you gotta remember, apple does not sell or license their OS to anyone. It is PART of the products they sell. As is the App Store. You cannot separate them. The App Store is worthless without apples OS, apples OS is worthless without an apple device. The entire reason for this is because apple has always been avoiding the antitrust issues Microsoft hit because of their OEM support.
It isn’t comparable to either consoles or mobile phones or any other closed ecosystem at all really.
I get why people wanna make all sorts of comparisons. But you gotta remember, apple does not sell or license their OS to anyone. It is PART of the products they sell. As is the App Store. You cannot separate them. The App Store is worthless without apples OS, apples OS is worthless without an apple device. The entire reason for this is because apple has always been avoiding the antitrust issues Microsoft hit because of their OEM support.
After decades in the tech space I still cannot figure out how “general computing device” came about as a differentiator. once you move beyond the first Atari Pong consoles all game consoles are essentially stored program machines. I guess a case could be made for the pure cartridge game consoles to be fixed program in that the cartridge was a hardware component with dedicated program code physicslly connected via the slot.
But all modern computing devices are program stored (regardless of OS, CPU, or architecture) devices. i would include PC, Mac, smart watches, tablets, mobile phones, game console, and even many calculators in that definition. I can only assume someone coined the general purpose device phrase as a layman's term for program store computing. Apps are loaded via disk or download, stored in memory, and processed. Games are just apps. Game consoles are just general purpose devices with default interaction mechanisms (controllers). But the input mechanism is irrelevant and even if it were, Xbox and the rest support keyboards and mice.
I do enjoy the “sold at a loss” argument as justification for the single device monopoly (manufacturer‘s App Store) though. It shows how disingenuous the arguments are. A business decision to sell at a loss in no way allows for securing on an device monopoly and more than being smart and selling at a profit would make such a single platform monopoly illegal. Not that there is such a thing as having a monopoly on your own platform. the selling consoles at a loss knowing that there many more millions in game, license fees, and developer fees on the backend is a valid sales strategy. It has worked for drug dealers for decades. The first hit is (relatively) free but the back end will kill ya.
in all, you are right, Apple’s critic do twist themselves into pretzels trying to posit an argument On some of these topics.
There are plenty of things Apple does that are worth of criticism. Those arguments tend to be logical and based in fact.
When your logic gates start to look like a set of football plays perhaps it is time to look at the premise.
Edit : Corrected a typo and reworded one awkwardly structured sentence.
Last edited:
I would argue that the decision for a game console to run only games is a choice, as is the decision to sell the console at a loss (or at break level prices).
Is there any reason on a technical level why an Xbox cannot be allowed to run Microsoft office and allow users to connect a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and hammer out an essay? Is there any reason why a game console cannot be sold at the same margins that the iPhone is? Could the decision to sell at loss not be seen as a form of dumping?
I think a lot of this oft-parroted arguments will simply fail to hold up to any form of scrutiny in court. They didn't make any lick of sense when I first them being uttered, and they still don't make a lick of sense to me now.
Theses 2 arguments have always just been ways for people who either like their consoles or don't care as much about them as they do iPhones to look consistent when they only come for Apple for having a closed OS.
I mean, you could flip both around and wonder if they'll all suddenly drop all the crying over iOS being closed if Apple locked it down more and/or made a loss on iPhones.
As a shareholder, and someone with some idea of how business works, I would hate to see that in practice. But I do have to say there is a morbid curiosity to test out that theory.