Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 330 posts

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

#301

Post by otterley »

Anon1096 wrote: post #259
otterley wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure how iOS can be considered a bastion for the web when it doesn't even have WebM support, which has been used across the web for years.

And yet video streaming in Safari seems to work fine for users, and better still, it leverages the native hardware decoding capabilities to minimize battery usage.

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

#302

Post by zamadatix »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #280
zamadatix wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course the law isn't ridiculous at face value, it's extending it to corner cases without looking at intent that can be. That's the point, the same thing is true of any law. It's impossible to cover all corner cases, at some point you need intent when you try to take it too far from what it was written to cover.

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

#303

Post by hu3 »

otterley wrote: post #301
Anon1096 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how iOS can be considered a bastion for the web when it doesn't even have WebM support, which has been used across the web for years.

And yet video streaming in Safari seems to work fine for users, and better still, it leverages the native hardware decoding capabilities to minimize battery usage.

WebM is widespread, royalty free media format that's hardware accelerated with zero cost license.

The reason non-WebM stream services might work on Safari is because said service engineers implemented alternatives to it.

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

#304

Post by simonh »

simion314 wrote: post #285
bilbo0s wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner of the gaming service is still curating the content available through that service. It's not like simply running the service through the browser allows any and every game to be on the service. Game devs for instance, would still need to negotiate with the owners of the game service in order to have their game available on the service. Might even need to pay the game service?

So why should Apple allow a web browser based service but block the same one (XBOX) if it uses a native application? let's be honest, Apple dopes it for money not for users, blocking XBOX will not protect anyone , Apple wants a big cut or even better they want to sell their own gaming service in future.

The Amazon service won’t appear in the App Store and won’t be sold by Apple. With the Microsoft client it would be sold by Apple in the App Store. If Apple sells you something they want a degree of say in what gets sold.

Yes of course this is about money.

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

#305

Post by bigbubba »

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…

I think you must have misunderstood. The idea was to make laws against murder sound ridiculous by breaking them down, not make yourself sound ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure you cannot do as I requested.

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

#306

Post by Dylan16807 »

zamadatix wrote: post #302
Dylan16807 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course the law isn't ridiculous at face value, it's extending it to corner cases without looking at intent that can be. That's the point, the same thing is true of any law. It's impossible to cover all corner cases, at some point you need intent when you try to take it too far from what it was written to cover.

Yes, that's your point. But you're arguing a different point than treve.

Treve was saying that anything becomes ridiculous when inspected closely enough. Even the core components.

You are saying that the extension to corner cases becomes ridiculous.

The extension can be ridiculous without the original core being ridiculous.

So you're saying a correct thing, but it's not relevant to the conversation that existed before your comment.

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

#307

Post by Dylan16807 »

Aeolun wrote: post #288
tacotime wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was in incredible pain and wanted to end my own life but was not capable on my own I might ask a close friend to help me with that. If that friend had enough empathy to help me fulfil my hypothetical wish then they would be a murderer, but a kind and helpful one. edit: maybe we want to define murder as killing someone who does not want to be killed. I would ask what you have to say about the "trolley problem". h…

The trolley problem is a bit silly. If you just boil it down to the actual question You can pick one of: 1 random person dies, or 5 random people die. Which one do you choose? The correct answer is obvious. The question is more interesting with more context.

If you remove the action/inaction part you've ruined the question.

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

#308

Post by otterley »

hu3 wrote: post #303
otterley wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet video streaming in Safari seems to work fine for users, and better still, it leverages the native hardware decoding capabilities to minimize battery usage.

WebM is widespread, royalty free media format that's hardware accelerated with zero cost license. The reason non-WebM stream services might work on Safari is because said service engineers implemented alternatives to it.

Right. My point is, the WebM solution was not needed to fulfill customer demand (just like Flash turned out not to be needed either). Customer demand isn't "give me WebM" - it's "give me high quality video in my mobile browser that doesn't kill my battery."

There is wisdom sometimes in saying "no."

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

#309

Post by jMyles »

danielheath wrote: post #128
jMyles wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There finally needs to be regulation on this. No banning of end user services as long as they're legal I was with you up until this moment. Doesn't this just shift the power to a less accountable authority in the state? What about content that isn't legal but which is, you know, not child abuse or similar? Does that deserve a platform also? I think that being able to view content on a phone regardless of its approv…

The state already bans illegal content. The question is whether we also want a second party banning it.

It seems to me that society desperately needs parties working to subvert such bans. Requiring that private companies instead actively participate in it seems like exactly the opposite.

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

#310

Post by xnyan »

soulofmischief wrote: post #297
paulryanrogers wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a reductive interpretation. Can you explain which individual's freedoms are being overridden? And why is the argument preposterous?

I, the individual, cannot decide what content is allowed on my own Apple device which costs more than half a thousand dollars. Yet the collective can decide at my expense: Netflix gets a free pass via the argument that Netflix's movies are somehow more important than the content I wish to experience. It's great to see collective bargaining in action, for sure. I don't blame the people, and I don't blame Netflix. I bl…

I think you’re kind of conflating what I believe is the ideal versus what I perceive to be reality.

We are one of billions of people. The fundamental nature of existence is that our sum ability to affect the world around is generally quite small in comparison to the sum of the consequences of others as a whole.

More people use Netflix, ergo Netflix has more leverage in negotiations with Apple. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial conclusion?

Post reply on HN