Of course Microsoft isn’t happy; Apple has essentially reaffirmed their position about the App Store being a curated platform and that they are not willing to introduce a vector in which apps can be run without having being vetted by Apple. The other requirements about implementing IAP is also to be expected, looking at it from Apple’s perspective of a curated and managed platform.
Is it great for Microsoft? Probably not. Is it the best possible consumer experience? That depends on what you value more - convenience of launching games or the curated platform. Personally, I see it as a compromise I can live with as a consumer and see the value in Apple reviewing each app rather than opening up a potential backdoor.
The only real sticking point (from a consumer perspective) is the installation it would seem, as it appears that there could be an xCloud app acting as a catalog which links out to each app with installation achieved via the App Store. Presumably, this app would be a basic app with the streaming technology embedded and once installed could be run from the xCloud app or via the app icon.
To me, it sounds like they want it to function similarly to the Apple TV app does, linking out to various different tv and movie content apps.
Not to sure how I feel about the approach personally. It feels a little convoluted, and would lead to oversights.
I remember with the old Apple TV prior to tvOS, the apps on that platform were ran in a similar vain to what they’re describing here, which meant the service was independent from other platforms. This meant random episodes of shows would be missing from the likes of Netflix or NowTV. Opening up the Apple TV to give developers control back over their content delivery was the best thing to happen to that platform.
In an ideal world, developers would control the content distribution and Apple would control the delivery. I think that would be a better middle ground for us as customers. It would be like all the various tv streaming apps and their content being built directly into the Apple TV app, rather than linking out to them and deep linking to specific episodes.
This is a tricky one. All I know as a costumer of both Apple and gamepass, is I want this on my iPhone and iPad. I don’t care how it happens, I just want it to happen. And by not having it available, for the first time ever, I feel liking I’m missing out on a great app/service because of the platform I’m a customer of. For the first time, for me, that’s an incentive to explore alternative options.
Ultimately, the way we access apps and games now is starting to change. Apple need to realise that, and for better or worse, adapt, and offer innovative solutions. Otherwise someone else will come along and do that for them, just as they did to BlackBerry.
Make no mistake, game sales and iAPs on iOS are insane, and a service like xcloud will no doubt cannibalise that, which Apple will no doubt want to prevent. But this creates the narrative that perhaps that’s why they make the rules so difficult for Microsoft to comply with, which then fuels the anti competitive narrative, and the stifling of innovation. Because though it may not be their intention, it is the result. By limiting the ability to get these services onto iOS, they’re preventing competition that would eat into a game delivery method that they profit from hugely. Apple should be working on their own such service, and allowing such an app provides them ample incentive. I for one, would buy and play fewer mobile games if I have the ability to drop into a Destiny strike instead.
To me, it sounds like Apple want to say they technically allow game streaming, while in reality offering an obtuse, overly complex and expensive option that no big service is likely to take.
This is the equivalent of having each show on Netflix or each Kindle ebook be it’s own app? Is this what you want on your iPhone?
https://twitter.com/hodapp/status/1304478215197593600?s=21
This is spot on. But it’s not just game streaming, steaming apps as a whole are a threat to the whole App Store model. To me, this is all about keeping control rather than explicitly about money (although this is obviously secondary).
Apple absolutely are stifling innovation. You simply cannot make certain apps / services on iOS, which means they’re just not developed full stop.
Tomalski is a member of the original iPhone team that worked on mobile Safari.
Not really sure how that is any way relevant.
What isn’t relevant to what?
I’m trying to remember the last time a “killer” app / service launched on Android and not iOS. This just feels like the ultimate own goal. But ya know; Apple’s platforms, Apple’s rules. Damn greedy third party devs!!!
My dream was always to have something like xcloud on my Apple TV.
Silly question but do apps like Monzo or Freetrade not have to pay the 30% on things like plus?
You could link one person’s ramblings on the matter, or just state “no, they don’t have to pay the 30%”. There’s no financial institution or financial app in general, that I’m aware of, that offer IAP to subscribe to a financial product.
In fact, it would probably come under:
- 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
In which case, using IAP would not be permitted. The IAP rules aren’t overly complex or burdensome to read, even for a lay person, and only require consulting during the development phase of the application (at which point any reasonable person will have familiarised themselves with what is and is not permitted on their chosen platform, surely.)
My reply was somewhat tongue in cheek. But in all seriousness, one of the biggest issues is that the rules aren’t all clear, are not applied consistently and are subject to change at any time.
Hey is a great example. Basecamp followed the same model that they and many others already use, but were rejected as Hey didn’t not qualify as a reader app (or whatever).
Obviously some examples are clear cut. But the complexity of the rules literally stops some apps from being made as the developer will be unsure whether or not to invest when there’s a risk of just not being approved.
Agreed, the rules are not fairly applied at all times and work needs to be done on consistency, but the rules were clear in the case of Hey - it was not permitted as originally submitted; Hey modified the app and it was approved. Fastmail was also asked to comply with the rules when they were identified as not being consistently applied, and they agreed.
Beside this, the rules have been clarified and relaxed somewhat with the very recent changes and now it’s fairly clear what is and is not a reader app. The App Store rules themselves can also be challenged, as was recently successfully done by Guardian VPN.
No doubt there are improvements Apple can make to the App Store rules and review process, such as improving consistency, but claiming the rules themselves are overly complex isn’t a particularly strong argument.
Sadly couldn’t see the answer
But they didn’t add IAP. They just provided an even worse user experience for iOS users, by making their account expire after 14 days (by marketing it as a ‘throw-away email’, with no signposting as to how to avoid that happening (because the rules state you can’t do that).
Apple’s argument was that “you download the app and it doesn’t work” and they said they didn’t want that, hence Hey’s modification.
But they didn’t add IAP.
That in itself is a demonstration of how the rules can be inconsistently applied - there’s nothing in the rules to state that the app “must work without subscription”, but it was Apple’s best bet of making the issue go away 24 hours prior to WWDC.
So then we’re back at this issue:
I still find it comical that Apple’s own App Store Connect doesn’t use IAP to collect the $100 annual subscription - instead, you do that elsewhere.
That’s because they collect your payment details elsewhere outside of using the app. Which is in accordance with the guidelines, so not really comical.
Had Hey just offered the option to also subscribe in app, I likely would have paid for their service by now, because I like what I tried. It would also make for a better UX. When developers go out of their way to not allow me to pay through the app, unless I already trust them, it rings alarm bells to me.
More often than not, developers that circumvent the App Store have the most dreadful customer care, and I often have to jump through hurdles for a refund or to cancel a subscription when the app or service wasn’t as advertised, or didn’t provide enough info up front to make an informed decision. Apple gives me a big fat cancel button for subscriptions, and refunds are easy and automated too.
Comical within the context of their rejection of Hey: “you download the app, and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want” - their own app doesn’t work unless you go elsewhere to subscribe first.
I think they explained their stance pretty well.
It wasn’t just about money, it was about being able to look after their customers - there are numerous examples in that post about things they’re prevented from doing, by using IAP.
For what it’s worth, it was actually Apple that suggested they do it… Basecamp (Hey) weren’t prepared to offer anything, until Phil Schiller said: “One way that HEY could have gone…is to offer a free or paid version of the app with basic email reading features on the App Store, then separately offered an upgraded email service that worked with the Hey app on iOS on its own website.”
That’s exactly what they did, at the suggestion of Apple.
Whilst I know you’re speaking generally, I can guarantee this isn’t the case with any of the team at Basecamp.
Ah, ok. I misunderstood.
I did read their stance a while back, but don’t necessarily agree with it. Their perspective is wrong, in my opinion, for the simple reason that I am Apple’s customer first and foremost, not their’s. They seem to think it’s the other way around which is baffling to me. For people who are already their customer then perhaps it’s fair, but the approach then locks out Apple’s customers and creates a bad UX for those, which I, nor Apple evidently, want.
Yes because that’s a potential solution that gives Apple’s customers access to the service to try. It is a quick solution, not necessarily the best one. Let Apple’s customers subscribe in app, pass the cost onto them if you want. Your customers can and will still pay you directly. I really don’t understand what the problem is with that approach, unless it’s about control and power over the user, as if we’re leverage these companies can use to further their own agenda like Fortnite is trying to do.
Absolutely. But I have no personal experience with them, so I’m hesitant to trust them for a rather large up front annual fee. A monthly option would be nice down the line. Less of a risk to me in trusting them then, so I can see how easy they make it to cancel, and how good their support is when there is an issue. But that’s not an option so I would personally feel safer paying through the App Store.
I think for me, as a user, too many developers over the years have abused the trust I’ve placed in them, and then Apple came along and offered a trustless method of accessing services and premium apps. I don’t want want that to go away.
This is just a difference opinion but I could not agree less.
I’m no more Apples customer then I am Microsoft’s when using a PC or Google’s when using an Android phone.
For the things I do subscribe to I go out of my way to do it directly. I want devs to get as much of my money as possible to make their services sustainable and better.
No right or wrong. Just horses for courses.