6 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. I don

> 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. I don't see how this logic doesn't also apply to Youtube, and other video-streaming apps? I get that it's less "interactive", but it's still content that Apple has "not reviewed".

javagram 6y ago
The XCloud streaming service has several hundred games. Youtube has millions of individual videos. There’s an obvious difference in scale that makes reviewing one possible and the other not. Apple could never even propose to have each individual YouTube video reviewed by their App Store.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  Your argument here is that Youtube is also in violation of these rules, but is allowed because they are too big for Apple to review? I mean yes, you might have a valid point, but that goes straight back against: > "all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers."
  - javagram 6y ago
    No, that is not my argument. The rules are online, and if you go and read them you can see that Youtube, netflix, and similar streaming video services and ebook readers, etc are explicitly exempted. As I said, Apple could never even hope to put this requirement on those type of services. It's totally impractical for them.
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      Yes, but do you not see the issue at play here? > "all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers." This strongly implies that all apps have to following the same rules and guidelines. Having the guidelines say that (for example) Youtube is exempt, means that yes, _technically_ all apps are following the same "guidelines", but Youtube isn't following the same "rules". Ie, writing exemptions into the guidelines means that the quoted statement, if it was being honest, would read: > "all apps, except for those granted exemptions, are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers." The exemptions are quite literally the issue with their statement.
      - javagram 6y ago
        The exemptions are for types of apps, not for individual apps. The idea that different rules might be written for different types of apps makes sense in the abstract. There are certainly arguments that can be made that Apple should change its rules to add more types of apps to the exemption. But they aren’t violating the rules they currently have, and also, as I said, making a rule that would require individual review of such content is impractical for apple - it would be the equivalent of banning those types of apps from the store. > 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase. The rule apple is asking microsoft to follow isn’t impossible, just inconvenient. There is already another game subscription service on iOS, “GameClub”, which follows the rules by submitting each game individually.
foepys 6y ago
Apple is hypocritical. They block apps for various reasons, may it be gambling, nudity, not paying the App Store fee on transactions, not including Apple's authentication provider, or other stuff. But they include a web browser which can access all of this forbidden content. As a German this American prudery is especially disturbing. We got nudity (not sexual acts) on public daytime television...
- ben_w 6y ago
  My first culture shock in Berlin was a rotating billboard cube advertising a kid’s dentist, what looked like a brothel, a BMW dealership, and a massage parlour in that order. Even as someone raised in the UK, I find American sexual prohibition to be disturbing, especially given the freedom America affords to express extreme violence.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    Berlin is a bit extreme even by German standards (let's not forget that Berlin was basically the capital of sex as early as the 1920s). Maybe what you remember as "looks like a brothel" was an ad for Dildoking? Those are basically everywhere. Incidentally (not having grown up here) I wonder how parents explain that to their kids. But I would take this any day over the American prudishness and I find the idea that you as a responsible adult shouldn't be allowed to install an app with sexual content repugnant. And it was particularly ridiculous that tumblr basically decided to commit suicide by banning NSFW content. Although I sometimes wonder if this is really just American prudishness or if it also has something to do with certain other markets (e.g. China) that tech companies want to expand to.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      It wasn’t Dildoking, although I do know why you’d think that as I have seen plenty of billboards (and fly-posters and a car) advertising them.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  It's weird indeed, they have no problem selling and steaming music that literally talks about killing someone. The puritanism is real.
Spivak 6y ago
I really don't see the hypocrisy in this one. Bypassing the App Store not via Safari will get you kicked off the platform no matter the technical means you use to accomplish it.

javagram 6y ago

The XCloud streaming service has several hundred games. Youtube has millions of individual videos. There’s an obvious difference in scale that makes reviewing one possible and the other not. Apple could never even propose to have each individual YouTube video reviewed by their App Store.

nrmitchi 6y ago
Your argument here is that Youtube is also in violation of these rules, but is allowed because they are too big for Apple to review? I mean yes, you might have a valid point, but that goes straight back against: > "all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers."
- javagram 6y ago
  No, that is not my argument. The rules are online, and if you go and read them you can see that Youtube, netflix, and similar streaming video services and ebook readers, etc are explicitly exempted. As I said, Apple could never even hope to put this requirement on those type of services. It's totally impractical for them.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    Yes, but do you not see the issue at play here? > "all apps are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers." This strongly implies that all apps have to following the same rules and guidelines. Having the guidelines say that (for example) Youtube is exempt, means that yes, _technically_ all apps are following the same "guidelines", but Youtube isn't following the same "rules". Ie, writing exemptions into the guidelines means that the quoted statement, if it was being honest, would read: > "all apps, except for those granted exemptions, are reviewed against the same set of guidelines that are intended to protect customers and provide a fair and level playing field to developers." The exemptions are quite literally the issue with their statement.
    - javagram 6y ago
      The exemptions are for types of apps, not for individual apps. The idea that different rules might be written for different types of apps makes sense in the abstract. There are certainly arguments that can be made that Apple should change its rules to add more types of apps to the exemption. But they aren’t violating the rules they currently have, and also, as I said, making a rule that would require individual review of such content is impractical for apple - it would be the equivalent of banning those types of apps from the store. > 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase. The rule apple is asking microsoft to follow isn’t impossible, just inconvenient. There is already another game subscription service on iOS, “GameClub”, which follows the rules by submitting each game individually.

foepys 6y ago

Apple is hypocritical. They block apps for various reasons, may it be gambling, nudity, not paying the App Store fee on transactions, not including Apple's authentication provider, or other stuff. But they include a web browser which can access all of this forbidden content. As a German this American prudery is especially disturbing. We got nudity (not sexual acts) on public daytime television...

ben_w 6y ago
My first culture shock in Berlin was a rotating billboard cube advertising a kid’s dentist, what looked like a brothel, a BMW dealership, and a massage parlour in that order. Even as someone raised in the UK, I find American sexual prohibition to be disturbing, especially given the freedom America affords to express extreme violence.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  Berlin is a bit extreme even by German standards (let's not forget that Berlin was basically the capital of sex as early as the 1920s). Maybe what you remember as "looks like a brothel" was an ad for Dildoking? Those are basically everywhere. Incidentally (not having grown up here) I wonder how parents explain that to their kids. But I would take this any day over the American prudishness and I find the idea that you as a responsible adult shouldn't be allowed to install an app with sexual content repugnant. And it was particularly ridiculous that tumblr basically decided to commit suicide by banning NSFW content. Although I sometimes wonder if this is really just American prudishness or if it also has something to do with certain other markets (e.g. China) that tech companies want to expand to.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    It wasn’t Dildoking, although I do know why you’d think that as I have seen plenty of billboards (and fly-posters and a car) advertising them.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
It's weird indeed, they have no problem selling and steaming music that literally talks about killing someone. The puritanism is real.

Spivak 6y ago

I really don't see the hypocrisy in this one. Bypassing the App Store not via Safari will get you kicked off the platform no matter the technical means you use to accomplish it.