10 ms·

> Basically, Apple wants to be able to review every game that graces an iPhone’s screen, even if it’s streamed from a game server somewhere in the cloud. Reall

by mimsee 6y ago

> Basically, Apple wants to be able to review every game that graces an iPhone’s screen, even if it’s streamed from a game server somewhere in the cloud. Really wondering how Apple can think they need to have that much power. How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too. And actually, I don't think that'd be too far off. Like what Google has their Safe Browsing list containing links to malware sites, Apple could create their own Apple Internet List, and demand through App Store policies that all browsers implement it or else.

blihp 6y ago
Need has nothing to do with it. They're identifying ways in which people are making money off of the platform and demanding a cut. This is what companies do unless there is competition and/or regulation.
- mimsee 6y ago
  Well I mean, Apple could be proactive with this. If they simply block everything, unless you paid of course, they could offer unparalleled security. /s
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Not really the same situation, but I would love an App Store where there were no free ad supported apps and the only way for monetization was by paying for the app or the service. I’m not saying that I think Apple deserves a 30% cut of every service.
- robenkleene 6y ago
  I don’t think this is about revenue sharing, presumably game streaming services could simply not include purchasing games or subscriptions in the app, the same way you can’t buy books in the Kindle app. This is about the much more subtle and insidious way that Apple leverages their control over iOS to block software that Apple deems threatening. App Store guideline 2.5.2[0], disallowing downloading and executing code in most circumstances, is a sister policy to this one about game streaming services. What both of these policies have in common is that they ban things that have the potential to supersede iOS itself, e.g., by becoming a successful app platform in-and-of itself (if you squint you can see the connection, if you can play Halo this way, why not Photoshop?) Ben Thompson has written the definitive article on this protectionist mindset that drives many of Apple's store policies[1]. [0]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5.2 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5... [1]: https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain...
  - criddell 6y ago
    If Amazon were willing to pay 30% on every book purchased, do you think Apple would still refuse to let customers purchase books through the Kindle app? I'd love to hear Apple explain what the worst case scenario is for consumers if they were to let Netflix customers sign up the app, let Amazon customers buy books in the app, or play streaming games? Apple is the most valuable company in the world and there's only one way for them to go from here.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      > Apple is the most valuable company in the world and there's only one way for them to go from here. Just for context, Apple became the most valuable company in 2011. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/09/apple-most-valuable-company-anniversary/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/09/apple-most-valuable-com... Microsoft was the most valuable company in 2002 and as of today, it’s #3. It could easily become number one again since it has much higher margins than Apple. Of course eventually Apple will fail. But who knows how long that will take?
    - vineyardmike 6y ago
      > If Amazon were willing to pay 30% on every book purchased, do you think Apple would still refuse to let customers purchase books through the Kindle app? No, that's the whole point. >I'd love to hear Apple explain what the worst case scenario is for consumers if they were to let Netflix customers sign up the app, let Amazon customers buy books in the app, or play streaming games? Infrequently heard perspective is that very often (non-tech) people call in to apple support about purchases made in apps on the iPhone. Apple owns the in-app purchasing of ALL purchases in app, and can reverse and refund the purchase. Worst case scenario is apple has to say "we can't help you" and they probs don't want that. When you stream a game/app instead of get it from App Store, apple can't say its a good experience or not broken, they can't refund or audit. Think about how apple was going to ban social media apps that allow p*rnographic content. They couldn't guarantee content on app... so ban it unless the app could self-censor. You can say apple shouldn't care about the quality/type of content, and people should be smart enough to distinguish 3party apps from apple apps... yet talk to Apple Support workers, and they'll tell you that people don't. Android, like google, has no real support services at all. Tons of people buy Apple because of support, and they will defend their ability to support (and take a nice fat chunk $$) until someone tells them its illegal.
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
They don’t actually allow 3rd party web browsers: every browser on iOS has to use WebKit and their JS Engine. The browsers are basically skins for safari
- mimsee 6y ago
  I know. There's still Firefox and Chrome on the app store regardless of what browser engine behind the scenes they use. Apple could add more restrictions to those apps still. And to nit-pick a bit: i think web browser is different from browser engine. Latter which Apple restricts to.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    Given how much time users spend in their browser, not allowing other browser engines could be entirely explained by not wanting to deal with support & review issues when users notice their brand new iPhone has 20% less battery life than it should (because they're using a browser that doesn't use Safari's engine).
    - mimsee 6y ago
      Sure. Battery-life expectations, security (like actually this time), expected integration with the rest of the operating system. But even speaking as an EU citizen, this ruling that only one browser engine can be used is very un-american. Where's the freedom in that. If I damn well know my battery will run in 10minutes if I use an app, well as an american (i'm not) I should be able to.
      - spanhandler 6y ago
        Yeah, but like 0.1% of their user base really cares about that particular freedom, while the rest would end up installing Chrome because Google put ad-banners for it at the top of all the Mobile Safari search results, then be pissed off that their iPhone is suddenly working worse "for no reason". Un-American, I dunno, maybe, but specifically the freedom of being able to run a different browser engine on iOS does seem like one of those freedoms that would just make life worse for most people for minimal benefit. To boot, the main beneficiary would be a competitor, at the expense of not just Apple but everyone on the platform. It's not even like the main effect would be an improved consumer experience.
gene91 6y ago
> Apple could create their own Apple Internet List, and demand through App Store policies that all browsers implement it or else. They do by requiring that all apps (including Chrome) to use the Safari WebKit engine provided by the OS. They actually justifies it by pointing to parental control and safe browsing.
- mimsee 6y ago
  Now wait until they touch macOS with this policy. "So that our customers could be safer than ever."
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Exactly. If you believe Apple's public statements, there's no reason they shouldn't have these restrictions on macOS, and in fact they're endangering users by not doing so.
  - sbarre 6y ago
    Jokes aside, this is why I'm happy to see Microsoft investing in WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). As a developer I'm glad to see solid options to MacOS emerging for running both modern web dev tools and mainstream commercial software.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean parental control wouldn't really be useful if you could just open, say FB messenger and "use" their built-in browser to bypass parental controls.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Nonsense, parental control can (and often does) block the installation of new apps. I don't need to be using Webkit just because I don't want my kid to install a 2nd browser.
    - Spivak 6y ago
Analemma_ 6y ago
> How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too. We basically got lucky that the web was invented and well-established long before the iPhone was. If it had been the other way around, I strongly doubt the iPhone would ship with a browser or that they'd be allowed on the App Store.
- mimsee 6y ago
  Same thing with cash. Imagine cash didn't exist and was now being invented. No-one would ever allow it because it can't be tracked.
nostromo 6y ago
How does YouTube and Netflix get approved since Apple can’t verify every video on their platform, including videos that have yet to be published? This reasoning is beyond absurd.
- mimsee 6y ago
  Maybe their thinking goes along the lines of "an installable game, whether local or not, is considered like an app, wheter it adds its own icon to the homescreen or not, and since it's considered as an app, it must be held to apple app store policies. now unlike youtube and netflix which primarily host video content that don't act like an app, even though you can download content for offline use in both apps."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - philjohn 6y ago
    Along the same vein then they would need to remove any remote desktop apps, of which there are many.
  - joenathanone 6y ago
    But the games aren't installed, just streamed.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Netflix has games that work on the iPhone. Why is that allowed?
    - escardin 6y ago
      They're not though? The interactive stuff doesn't work on an Apple TV at least.
      - monocularvision 6y ago
        They work on iOS devices.
wvenable 6y ago
I wonder when they'll come for RDP and VNC clients because here I am running whatever software I want on my iPhone streamed from a remote server.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  Their rules say its ok if you connect over LAN and if you own the server on the other end.
ponker 6y ago
Basically, decide you want to make the maximum possible amount of money and reason backwards to the types of "principles" you'd need to stipulate to justify the policies that maximize your money.
ssss11 6y ago
Tech companies need to stop thinking they should moderate content. This isnt their job and its a can of worms they’re ill equipped to manage.
justinclift 6y ago
> Really wondering how Apple can think they need to have that much power. Apple's approach for many years (at least) has been screaming "control freak", so it's completely in character.

by mimsee 6y ago

blihp 6y ago

Need has nothing to do with it. They're identifying ways in which people are making money off of the platform and demanding a cut. This is what companies do unless there is competition and/or regulation.

mimsee 6y ago
Well I mean, Apple could be proactive with this. If they simply block everything, unless you paid of course, they could offer unparalleled security. /s
- scarface74 6y ago
  Not really the same situation, but I would love an App Store where there were no free ad supported apps and the only way for monetization was by paying for the app or the service. I’m not saying that I think Apple deserves a 30% cut of every service.
robenkleene 6y ago
I don’t think this is about revenue sharing, presumably game streaming services could simply not include purchasing games or subscriptions in the app, the same way you can’t buy books in the Kindle app. This is about the much more subtle and insidious way that Apple leverages their control over iOS to block software that Apple deems threatening. App Store guideline 2.5.2[0], disallowing downloading and executing code in most circumstances, is a sister policy to this one about game streaming services. What both of these policies have in common is that they ban things that have the potential to supersede iOS itself, e.g., by becoming a successful app platform in-and-of itself (if you squint you can see the connection, if you can play Halo this way, why not Photoshop?) Ben Thompson has written the definitive article on this protectionist mindset that drives many of Apple's store policies[1]. [0]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5.2 https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5... [1]: https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain...
- criddell 6y ago
  If Amazon were willing to pay 30% on every book purchased, do you think Apple would still refuse to let customers purchase books through the Kindle app? I'd love to hear Apple explain what the worst case scenario is for consumers if they were to let Netflix customers sign up the app, let Amazon customers buy books in the app, or play streaming games? Apple is the most valuable company in the world and there's only one way for them to go from here.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    > Apple is the most valuable company in the world and there's only one way for them to go from here. Just for context, Apple became the most valuable company in 2011. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/09/apple-most-valuable-company-anniversary/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/09/apple-most-valuable-com... Microsoft was the most valuable company in 2002 and as of today, it’s #3. It could easily become number one again since it has much higher margins than Apple. Of course eventually Apple will fail. But who knows how long that will take?
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    > If Amazon were willing to pay 30% on every book purchased, do you think Apple would still refuse to let customers purchase books through the Kindle app? No, that's the whole point. >I'd love to hear Apple explain what the worst case scenario is for consumers if they were to let Netflix customers sign up the app, let Amazon customers buy books in the app, or play streaming games? Infrequently heard perspective is that very often (non-tech) people call in to apple support about purchases made in apps on the iPhone. Apple owns the in-app purchasing of ALL purchases in app, and can reverse and refund the purchase. Worst case scenario is apple has to say "we can't help you" and they probs don't want that. When you stream a game/app instead of get it from App Store, apple can't say its a good experience or not broken, they can't refund or audit. Think about how apple was going to ban social media apps that allow p*rnographic content. They couldn't guarantee content on app... so ban it unless the app could self-censor. You can say apple shouldn't care about the quality/type of content, and people should be smart enough to distinguish 3party apps from apple apps... yet talk to Apple Support workers, and they'll tell you that people don't. Android, like google, has no real support services at all. Tons of people buy Apple because of support, and they will defend their ability to support (and take a nice fat chunk $$) until someone tells them its illegal.

fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago

They don’t actually allow 3rd party web browsers: every browser on iOS has to use WebKit and their JS Engine. The browsers are basically skins for safari

mimsee 6y ago
I know. There's still Firefox and Chrome on the app store regardless of what browser engine behind the scenes they use. Apple could add more restrictions to those apps still. And to nit-pick a bit: i think web browser is different from browser engine. Latter which Apple restricts to.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  Given how much time users spend in their browser, not allowing other browser engines could be entirely explained by not wanting to deal with support & review issues when users notice their brand new iPhone has 20% less battery life than it should (because they're using a browser that doesn't use Safari's engine).
  - mimsee 6y ago
    Sure. Battery-life expectations, security (like actually this time), expected integration with the rest of the operating system. But even speaking as an EU citizen, this ruling that only one browser engine can be used is very un-american. Where's the freedom in that. If I damn well know my battery will run in 10minutes if I use an app, well as an american (i'm not) I should be able to.
    - spanhandler 6y ago
      Yeah, but like 0.1% of their user base really cares about that particular freedom, while the rest would end up installing Chrome because Google put ad-banners for it at the top of all the Mobile Safari search results, then be pissed off that their iPhone is suddenly working worse "for no reason". Un-American, I dunno, maybe, but specifically the freedom of being able to run a different browser engine on iOS does seem like one of those freedoms that would just make life worse for most people for minimal benefit. To boot, the main beneficiary would be a competitor, at the expense of not just Apple but everyone on the platform. It's not even like the main effect would be an improved consumer experience.

gene91 6y ago

> Apple could create their own Apple Internet List, and demand through App Store policies that all browsers implement it or else. They do by requiring that all apps (including Chrome) to use the Safari WebKit engine provided by the OS. They actually justifies it by pointing to parental control and safe browsing.

mimsee 6y ago
Now wait until they touch macOS with this policy. "So that our customers could be safer than ever."
- orangecat 6y ago
  Exactly. If you believe Apple's public statements, there's no reason they shouldn't have these restrictions on macOS, and in fact they're endangering users by not doing so.
- sbarre 6y ago
  Jokes aside, this is why I'm happy to see Microsoft investing in WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). As a developer I'm glad to see solid options to MacOS emerging for running both modern web dev tools and mainstream commercial software.
Spivak 6y ago
I mean parental control wouldn't really be useful if you could just open, say FB messenger and "use" their built-in browser to bypass parental controls.
- ponker 6y ago
  Nonsense, parental control can (and often does) block the installation of new apps. I don't need to be using Webkit just because I don't want my kid to install a 2nd browser.
  - Spivak 6y ago

Analemma_ 6y ago

> How can they let me, a simple-minded iPhone user use the web browser without checking every website so that the sites don't violate Apple's policies. How do they allow 3rd party web browsers. They display loads of questionable content, too. We basically got lucky that the web was invented and well-established long before the iPhone was. If it had been the other way around, I strongly doubt the iPhone would ship with a browser or that they'd be allowed on the App Store.

mimsee 6y ago
Same thing with cash. Imagine cash didn't exist and was now being invented. No-one would ever allow it because it can't be tracked.

nostromo 6y ago

How does YouTube and Netflix get approved since Apple can’t verify every video on their platform, including videos that have yet to be published? This reasoning is beyond absurd.

mimsee 6y ago
Maybe their thinking goes along the lines of "an installable game, whether local or not, is considered like an app, wheter it adds its own icon to the homescreen or not, and since it's considered as an app, it must be held to apple app store policies. now unlike youtube and netflix which primarily host video content that don't act like an app, even though you can download content for offline use in both apps."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- philjohn 6y ago
  Along the same vein then they would need to remove any remote desktop apps, of which there are many.
- joenathanone 6y ago
  But the games aren't installed, just streamed.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Netflix has games that work on the iPhone. Why is that allowed?
  - escardin 6y ago
    They're not though? The interactive stuff doesn't work on an Apple TV at least.
    - monocularvision 6y ago
      They work on iOS devices.

wvenable 6y ago

I wonder when they'll come for RDP and VNC clients because here I am running whatever software I want on my iPhone streamed from a remote server.

vineyardmike 6y ago
Their rules say its ok if you connect over LAN and if you own the server on the other end.

ponker 6y ago

Basically, decide you want to make the maximum possible amount of money and reason backwards to the types of "principles" you'd need to stipulate to justify the policies that maximize your money.

ssss11 6y ago

Tech companies need to stop thinking they should moderate content. This isnt their job and its a can of worms they’re ill equipped to manage.

justinclift 6y ago

> Really wondering how Apple can think they need to have that much power. Apple's approach for many years (at least) has been screaming "control freak", so it's completely in character.