The distinction is that the app developer is also selling access to specific computer software running on the developer’s infrastructure, to be run in a way that appears to function just like on-device code. I don’t fully agree with Apple’s decision but I do understand it and recognise that it’s an awkward intersection between selling software and access to software that’s running elsewhere.
Couldn’t web assembly remove this line entirely?
If only Safari on iOS fully supported it, which it doesn't.
I think you’re really cherry picking here. Most developers that frequent “caniuse” most likely encounter lack if safari support above every other browser. Also have you seen webgl 2? What a joke from the webkit team. Yes webgpu is on the way but it’s been like a decade now.
Memory is hazy, but from what I've read most people that call Chrome the new IE is because it likes to incorporate non-standard aspects that other browsers don't (because they're not standard) which causes apps to lose functionality (or outright break) outside of Chrome. I can kind of see it both ways. I appreciate that Chromium browsers may have little extras you can tap into as it'll make for neat features (Project…
I do also appreciate the so-called experiments by the Chrome team, but my gripe is that they are implemented directly instead of hiding it in flags. Other people do want to comment on the specific implementation and probably change the API so that for example it is less destructive when there are new subfeatures in the specification. I personally hate how they handled the Polymer specification: thry are still using their draft instead of the standardized version in YouTube for example.
Sony, Microsoft etc sell their hardware at a loss and recoup through software licensing. Which is not possible if you going to force them to do things like have alternative app stores or to allow any content to be used.
Game consoles aren't computers. They're much cheaper and last longer than phones. You can also buy and sell your games.
Just more evidence that large platform and device owners will try to gate-keep and landgrab as much as they can and try to destroy the open web and force competitors into financial agreements to collect economic rent. There finally needs to be regulation on this. No banning of end user services as long as they're legal, I don't want a phone maker controlling what I do on the internet. It's ridiculous. Microsoft in th…
Destroying the open web? What are you talking about? Apple has a fantastic track record of making Safari a world class web browser for iOS. If Microsoft, Google, and others made these gaming offerings web apps, they’d likely work just fine.
That’s literally only because Amazon worked with them to introduce the needed features so they could launch Luna. Controller support was shoddy before iOS14, for example, so the web app approach wasn’t viable for xCloud or Stadia.
Just more evidence that large platform and device owners will try to gate-keep and landgrab as much as they can and try to destroy the open web and force competitors into financial agreements to collect economic rent. There finally needs to be regulation on this. No banning of end user services as long as they're legal, I don't want a phone maker controlling what I do on the internet. It's ridiculous. Microsoft in th…
> to destroy the open web Except this rule doesn't prohibit anybody from putting anything on the internet. TFA is only about putting a streaming service on the App Store . Not to say that's not problematic, but Apple's not holding the web back in any way with this rule.
> Apple's not holding the web back in any way with this rule.
Yeah, not with this rule. They are holding the web back by refusing to run 3rd party browsers or modernize their one.
I do willingly opt-out of the Apple platform. However, if I lived in the US, I would be forced to buy an iPhone, because of the (you guessed it) propietary lock-in that is iMessage. Regulation is necessary.
I don't think that's correct, there is nothing forcing you to use iMessage. Lock-in is not compulsion, you can simply stop using the product.
"Stop using the product" works for coffee, where if you don't like it you can try an alternative. But with the cash cows of mega corps you often have few alternatives and it's intentionally difficult to switch.
I don't understand why some are wary of government regulations, but have no qualms about being controlled by major corporations where you don't even have a vote.
I'll bite - what's the difference between a movie-streaming app and a game-streaming app?
The difference is that a movie streaming app streams fixed content while game streaming essentially streams arbitrary apps, albeit limited to gaming in this situation. From Apple's perspective, this sort of precedent could lead to entire app ecosystems bypassing the app store via streaming. It would be a workaround to Apple's refusal to allow third party stores on iOS. The same risk doesn't apply to more constrained…
Officially, the web is where things that aren't allowed in the app store are supposed to go. Anyway, can't you buy videos and games from the Amazon app?
Just more evidence that large platform and device owners will try to gate-keep and landgrab as much as they can and try to destroy the open web and force competitors into financial agreements to collect economic rent. There finally needs to be regulation on this. No banning of end user services as long as they're legal, I don't want a phone maker controlling what I do on the internet. It's ridiculous. Microsoft in th…
I am not being glib when I say: just don't use Apple. Yes, what they do is bad. But it isn't force. It isn't coercion. It's people coming to them and wanting to use their services. Just don't use their services. Just because you feel powerless in making individual choices doesn't mean advocating for the use of force against the company is moral.
A duopoly is not meaningfully better than a monopoly if both participants are doing equally amoral things.
Streaming apps arrives are a way to bypass the App Store. That’s why they are banned unless the individual apps or games are submitted individually. It’s not really surprising they don’t want other companies running storefronts on iOS. The ‘consistency’ argument is just not valid.
isn't a website also a way to bypass the app store?
Yes. Not only is it a way, it is the way Apple recommends and supports.
They have explitly talked about their ‘two plaforms’ approach.
Approved and controlled stuff in the store. Everything else via the web.