Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#271

Post by ThatPlayer » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #161

ThatPlayer wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What regulations are those? Netflix has Minecraft Story Mode now https://www.netflix.com/title/80227995 . What regulations are being applied, and how are those incompatible with video games? Also aren't movie rating systems like the MPA self-regulated? Not required by law. There's already equivalent systems for video games with PEGI and ESRB.

You understand that there is more to the world than the US. Every country has regulations for music/movies/TV. US and a handful of other countries have them for games and I am not aware of any for apps.

That's why I'm asking what regulations are there? I'm not claiming they don't exist. If something like Minecraft Story Mode is a movie on Netflix, what movie ratings does it have? For example, I can find it on ESRB's website rating, but it's not like it's on MPA's https://www.filmratings.com/

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34178/Minecraft%3A+Story+Mode+-...

Meanwhile Netflix's own Bandersnatch is not ESRB rated, and isn't too different as a game. Yet Apple has supported both of these perfectly fine regardless of their lack of proper ratings.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#272

Post by spideymans » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

esclerofilo wrote: post #180

sneak wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think regulation (forcing Apple to compromise their editorial decisions) the answer? Nobody is forced into buying an iPhone. Customers willingly opt-in to these platforms.

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.

How is it that people successfully move from iPhone to Android if iMessage is locking them in?

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#273

Post by millstone » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

IggleSniggle wrote: post #237

enos_feedler wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand what enabling multiple browsers, from an engine standpoint, would achieve. Is it competition? Don't all browsers just implement the same set of standards? What is the lack of competition holding back?

They don’t all implement the same set of standards equally. The one that comes immediately to mind is one that comes up frequently as “hey do you know your website is broken on iOS” on HN is when someone is demoing some really interesting web-tech that requires SharedArrayBuffer (since it enables thread-like behavior in JavaScript and is super useful also for performant interaction with the GPU). Browsers can of cour…

It's not useful to cast this in terms of standards. If your users use a non-standards compliant browser, you fix your website, not the browser.

With regard to your second paragraph, I believe you have made a category error between "the App Store" and "the browser." The browser is not a store.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#274

Post by zinekeller » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:43 AM UTC

calciphus wrote: post #249

zinekeller wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, most developers with an opinion on "new IE" says that Google Chrome is the new IE. There are cases of Firefox and Safari implementing features and Chrome-specific behavior that they won't endorse but are used by webistes (notably, unsurprisingly, Google's sites) [1, 2, 3]. Additionally, there are features that most have requested but are effectively being blocked by Google [3]. 1: https://hacks.mozilla.org/…

My experience with pretty complicated web development (interactive graphical tools built in webgl, synchronous behavior across hundreds of active clients) was that Safari was responsible for massively more bugs than any other browser we dealt with. IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Chromium, across OSs from a decade back through modern ones - all of those permutations combined. Most commonly we'd see just weird things. Ev…

Okay, I forgot that side of IE to be honest, and we have encountered some weird bugs (real bugs, Safari was out-of-spec). It just didn't dawn on me that maybe what they meant on Safari is the new IE in terms of the workarounds (which were harder because there is no conditional comments unlike in IE). I have said that Chrome is the new IE because not of the bugs but more of the very Microsoft way of apparent EEE (but otherwise they tend to try to implement specs in a more tested way).

I should have worded it in a better way, and when someone said "X is the new IE" I should view the context of it. "Chrome is the new IE" is a very valid opinion, but not in all contexts, and so is "Safari is the new IE".

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#275

Post by simonh » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:45 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #34

simonh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a simple consistent principle in operation. If an app is simply a neutral front end to a distributed set of independent back end services that are not managed by the owner of the app, then the app owner is not responsible for the content. Web browsers clearly match this description as the browser developer isn’t responsible for all the web sites you could visit. But it also applies to email clients, Mastodon…

That could be a principle, but they've mucked around with Mastodon and podcast clients that such a rule would say are fine.

And all of those issues were resolved, because they complied with the App Store rules which implement these principles.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#276

Post by sneak » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #255

Zanni wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't they? The burden to demonstrate a compelling argument should always be on those who want to restrict freedom, not on those who want to enjoy (or retain) freedom.

We're talking about restricting the freedom of a corporation to increase the freedom of people. So, as you stated, why should the status quo exist and restrict the freedom of consumers?

The people's freedom is not restricted by Apple deciding to include or exclude certain features from their phones.

If people don't like the phones, they don't have to engage with the ecosystem at all. Many diehard anti-Apple (or anti-smartphone-in-general) people do just this today.

You also have this freedom if you don't like Apple products.

I, for example, have just purchased my last iPhone.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#277

Post by mulmen » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #262

mulmen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state desires what the voters demand. Apathy will be the death of liberty.

It is a simple matter to make voters demand central control of all computing resources. All they have to do is mention the fact that terrorists, drug dealers and child molesters also happen to be computer users. Can't even offer a counter-argument against that without being marked as a pedophile sympathizer. Put enough fear into the population and they'll accept anything any authority presents as a solution. That's t…

This is exactly the apathy that threatens democracy.

What do you suggest? Give up? You have condemned democracy itself.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#278

Post by echelon » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:58 AM UTC

millstone wrote: post #221

echelon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's time for the DOJ to break up Apple. Together with Google, they're destroying the Internet and open computing. Soon, it'll be all information that is locked down and controlled. Computers didn't use to be like this. Apple has land grabbed their way here and is now clamping down harder than ever before. If we don't revolt, we're going to wind up in a terrible place where Apple and Google make all the movies and ga…

I demand open computing. I have it, it's cheaper than ever, like RPis are given away in cereal boxes. I also have an iPad. I know I lose some software access (e.g. Facebook streaming games) but I also gain software, like Slay the Spire and FTL and Bastion. These games are iOS exclusive in part because iOS effectively prevents piracy, which is another way of saying that users cannot run whatever software they want. I'…

Your educated choice here, together with the uninformed choices of millions of Americans, support an economic system that disenfranchises device owners, software engineers, and small businesses.

It's okay, have your iDevice. But that choice supports a company that makes the world less equitable for others. To deny that is to deny economics and the power of monopoly.

We need to educate our lawmakers about this situation so that they can make a decision that most Americans are unequipped to understand.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#279

Post by manigandham » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #276

manigandham wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about restricting the freedom of a corporation to increase the freedom of people. So, as you stated, why should the status quo exist and restrict the freedom of consumers?

The people's freedom is not restricted by Apple deciding to include or exclude certain features from their phones. If people don't like the phones, they don't have to engage with the ecosystem at all. Many diehard anti-Apple (or anti-smartphone-in-general) people do just this today. You also have this freedom if you don't like Apple products. I, for example, have just purchased my last iPhone.

It's not certain features. It's an app store that determines what software you can run on the hardware you already purchased, even retroactively disabling it. This is on top of their continued intensive efforts to thwart repairs of the hardware itself outside of Apple.

Plenty of corporations and corporate actions are regulated even when the consumer has choice. Because choice alone is not the issue, and that's usually with options that have far more than 2 ecosystems.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#280

Post by Dylan16807 » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 6:07 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #233

bigbubba wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you break any concept/law down far enough, it becomes kinda meaningless. I call bullshit, I think it's mostly just bad laws that become ridiculous when 'broken down'. If you want to convince me otherwise, demonstrate your claim using laws against murder (unambiguously good laws.)

Hmm I'd like to see your "laws against murder" that cover every possibly corner case of homicide being acceptable or unacceptable without relying on intent of the law to come into consideration regardless of circumstance. It would be infinitely long. There is no unambiguously good law because of the simple fact nothing is unambiguously good. Given billions of people and many years some ambiguous scenario is going to…

It has corner cases, that's not a breakdown that makes it become "kinda meaningless" or the law itself ridiculous.