Apple Blocks Steam's Plan To Extend Its Video Games To iPhones (reuters.com)

Citing "business conflicts," Apple has blocked Steam's plans to distribute PC-based video games to iPhones. It's "a sign that Apple is serious about protecting its ability to take a cut of digital purchases made inside games on its mobile devices," reports Reuters. From the report: Steam, the dominant online store for downloaded games played on Windows PCs, had planned to release a free mobile phone app called Steam Link so that gamers could continue playing on their mobile phones while away from their desktop machines. But Apple has rejected the app, blocking its release, according to a statement from Steam's parent company, the Bellevue, Washington-based Valve. Steam did not give a precise reason for the App Store denials, saying only that Apple cited "business conflicts with app guidelines." But the conflict likely centers on what are known as in-app purchases or micro-transactions, in which gamers can spend small sums of money inside games to buy tokens, extra lives or others so-called digital goods. Lombardi said Steam disabled purchasing its iOS app but did not elaborate on how the change was made. Many analysts believe Apple could lose revenue if they allow Steam's app, which is essentially a store-within-a-store. "Apple takes a 30 percent cut of such purchases made within apps distributed through its App Store," Reuters notes. "[T]hose purchases are among the primary drivers of revenue in Apple's services business."

Comments

Anti competitive

[jwymanm]

This is the real reason Apple is so locked down. To keep the money funnel going. You can't fault a company for doing this but it is seriously anti competitive in nature. It's the only reason I stick with Android too since you can still side load (for how much longer don't know).

Re:Anti competitive

[Tsolias]

they gotta get one piece from every pie available.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

I can and do fault people who give their money for this locked down, anti-freedom system. It is true that many people do not understand the issues, but a lot of techies do (or should) and buy this stuff anyway. Despite repeated examples of why it's a bad idea, they allow themselves to be locked into a platform. "This time will be different" or some such nonsense. Well, here is a good example of why it's bad, right here. This time is not different.

Re: Anti competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is which do you choose? A company that locks you in to their platform, but generally respects your privacy (at least to our knowledge), or a company that's far less locked down, but pisses all over your privacy. I'm currently on Android, but Google is seriously pissing me off and I start wondering if Apple might be better.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

A company that locks you in to their platform, but generally respects your privacy (at least to our knowledge), or a company that's far less locked down, but pisses all over your privacy.

You can do something about the privacy problem. You can't do much about the lockdown problem.

Re: Anti competitive

[KiloByte]

The problem is which do you choose? A company that locks you in to their platform, but generally respects your privacy (at least to our knowledge), or a company that's far less locked down, but pisses all over your privacy.

Choose neither. I'll put my N900 to rest literally today (unless the delivery critter with Gemini is delayed again), then there you have Sailfish and some other niche stuff. Or even some AOSP builds if you want near-Android.

Gemini ships dual-booting Android and Debian, but you can guess how many times I'm going to boot Google-Spyware before running mkfs on that partition (hint: I'm a honking DD, so I'm a wee bit biased towards one of these boot options).

Re:Anti competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Gold Medal in mental gymnastics goes to...

Re:Anti competitive

[jwymanm]

It blocks customers from using another provider outside Apple's ecosystem while providing no alternative for regular PC gaming on their line of smartphone devices. It's anti fair use, anti open source/technology, anti open market, and anti competition. I said you can't fault Apple for doing so since it is more profitable this way and I've argued in the past about slippery slope (once they allow Steam everyone will want to do it). But please spare me questions on how this is anti competition. It's the equivalent of Microsoft or Google blocking other search engines on their phones because they want ad revenue.

Re: Anti competitive

[ilsaloving]

Or maybe... just maybe... us techies arn't one-issue-voters. Maybe we bought Apple because we looked at all the options and variables, compared them to our needs, and decided that an Apple device was the best choice for what we needed.

The unescapable fact is that, despite being a bunch of obnoxious, money-grubbing control-freaks who seem to have completely lost their marbles in recent years, their devices are still vastly superior to Android in many critical aspects:

-They actually support their devices, on average of about 5 years. Android? You're *lucky* if you get two. Most give you the finger as soon as they have your money.
-Overwhelmingly lower incidents of malware. While not perfect, they've done a significantly better job of keeping malware out than Google has.
-I don't have to put my sysadmin hat on just to use a freaking phone. The idea that I need to worry about resource management, for example, is offensive to me. It's a f__king *phone*.
-Overwhelmingly better privacy features than Android. Again, not perfect, but lightyears ahead of Androids, "This flashlight app requires access to your entire contact list and you can't do anything about if you didn't notice that permission during install."

For me personally: Siri. I use this a lot. I use it for making music selections, sending text messages, making phone calls, etc. The last time I used the Google equivalent, it was effectively useless, and from what people have told me recently, it hasn't gotten any better. Maybe they saved all the good stuff for their home device products? Don't know, don't care.

There are some aspects, in fact a lot, of aspects to iOS and the way Apple carries themselves that frustrate me. But when taken in aggregate, Apple is still the superior device to use than anything the Android ecosystem has to offer.

Google has made great strides in improve Android. They've improved privacy, introduced deep sleep features, and most recently, Project Treble. But I'm the kind of person who does not rely on a company's future promises, so I am waiting to see if all these new features actually live up to expectations before I even consider jumping ship.

Re:Anti competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

They can create the hardware to run the software on, they can create the OS, and people can pay for both of those things, but the point of computer hardware and an OS is to run software applications. Apple is free to create their own apps and sell them. They're free to create an app marketplace for which they can take a cut of third party app sales. However, it's 100% anti-competitive for them to refuse to allow a third party marketplace app on their phone simply because it would take a cut of their proceeds.

If I buy a phone, a piece of hardware and an OS, I should be able to download whatever the F I want on it and buy from any source I want to, just like I can do on a PC.

Speaking of PCs, this is comparable to Microsoft and their monopoly anti-trust case from the 90s, where they made it difficult to install competing software on their OS. "Difficult" being the key word. It was still possible. Apple is being far more brazen by making it "Impossible".

I like Steam, but they hold a near monopoly on games sales, so they're not the moral flag bearer in this arena... however, a person isn't locked into buying software from Steam only unless the game publisher chooses that. The publisher can choose to go through any company they want. Apple, on the other hand, is disallowing game publishers from using any other marketplace. BIG difference!

Re:Anti competitive

[blahplusplus]

You can't fault a company for doing this but it is seriously anti competitive in nature.

It's over the whole idea of software ownership can't exist now that everyone has high speed internet. The tech industry always hated their customers having control over their devices and software we've literally been robbed because 90% of the general public are illiterate and morons especially when it comes to gaming. Videogame history won't exist esp with those gacha games and android f2p games. Games will simply disappear and "go dark" forever. It's a fucking tragedy. The "market" is over largely because customers have no market power, the internet undermined the ability of customers to hold companies accountable when they are hundreds of miles away to get a fair shake and eventually release the software they paid for.

The fact that quake champions is a server locked f2p microtransaction game means we are in the worst of all possible worlds. I never imagined in my life that the population of game buyers on PC was so fucking retarded. Steam shouldn't even exist in a rational world.

Re: Anti competitive

[fluffernutter]

The locked down company that puts their profits ahead of your usage is definitely the worst of two evils. At least the invasion of privacy can be mitigated in some ways and it doesn't directly affect me since my life isn't all that exciting that I would warrant specific attention. Even if I had nudes on my phone I'm pretty sure no one would want them!

Re:Anti competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't block other search engines on their phones.

Re:Anti competitive

[BronsCon]

It is anti-competitive because Apple denied the app based on it competing with Apple's own functionality (though it does not). It doesn't get much more literal than that. Don't bother arguing with me, or anyone else here, on that point though; just wait and see whether the FTC investigates them over it. If they do, you were wrong. If they do not, you were right.

Re: Anti competitive

[nghate]

Why hasnâ(TM)t Apple been sued yet? They are a monopoly and abusing their powers.... EU should breakup apple App Store monopoly on iOS and allow other app stores the ability to install apps on iOS

Re:Anti competitive

[TheFakeTimCook]

This is the real reason Apple is so locked down. To keep the money funnel going. You can't fault a company for doing this but it is seriously anti competitive in nature. It's the only reason I stick with Android too since you can still side load (for how much longer don't know).

There are a LOT of things MS has never released for Apple, too. Shall I enumerate?

It's Apple's platform, and Apple's App Store.

And you can Side Load on iOS since iOS 8, nearly 4 years ago. Please DO try to keep up!

Go on GitHub. There is a vibrant Open Source iOS Community, with dozens, if not HUNDREDS of Apps.

Then there's Cydia Impactor, which allows even people WITHOUT a Mac to Sideload Apps that are published to '.ipa' files. This does NOT require Jailbreaking!

https://www.modmy.com/here-how...

And there are a growing number of "App Stores" that trade in those .ipa files. Here's a couple:

https://iosninja.io/ipa-librar...

https://iphone.mob.org/

Re: Anti competitive

[TheFakeTimCook]

The problem is which do you choose? A company that locks you in to their platform, but generally respects your privacy (at least to our knowledge), or a company that's far less locked down, but pisses all over your privacy. I'm currently on Android, but Google is seriously pissing me off and I start wondering if Apple might be better.

Clue: They are.

Re: Anti competitive

[Kjella]

I think even geeks want appliances. Most of the things around me are neither open source software nor open source hardware, my microwave works the way it works and as long as it's not outright defective the only reasonable choice I have if I'm unhappy with it is to go down to the store and buy a new one from a different brand. Now I'm sure RMS would say I should be able to make and install my own enhancements and bug fixes and the 3D printing fans would say I should be able to make my own parts, but for me that is sufficient consumer power. Most of the time I feel that way about my phone too, if it does the things it does well I don't care so much about the wall unless of course something I desperately want is on the other side.

Lately I've become more and more concerned though with the level of data collection going on, it's not what the app does for me it's all the spying it does on the side. Apple has made that so hard even the FBI is frustrated. And the main alternative is a phone made by the biggest data miner of them all, tied into a ton of their services. The "third option" has been Windows Phone, Blackberry or some extremely niche phones with near zero support or applications. So I picked my poison and figured Apple was actually the least bad choice. If I want root control and the source code it's called Linux and runs on a laptop/desktop. If it's that sensitive, then I simply wouldn't put it on a phone.

Re:Anti competitive

[vux984]

" Steam is free to release their own SteamPhone"

And what does that have to do with anything?

That's like saying GM can block you from getting your oil changed at minute lube, and its not anti-competitive because minute-lube can produce its own cars and perform oil changes on those.

That's fucking idiotic.

And its the main reason i don't own an apple ios device. I want multiple store fronts. For example, I want stuff i buy on humblebundle to work on all my compatible devices.

I have no objection ot the apple store existing, but buying an apple phone shouldn't amount to consent to only purchasing from the apple store, because apple actively blocks other stores from existing. That's anti-competitive.

Should your teleco get a cut of all your telephone and online purchases because they built the platform you are using to make those purchases too. Never mind your shiny little phone that's peanutes here; what about all the telephone and internet infrastructure you use? Why does Apple get a 30 cents of every dollar you spend while holding your phone, but ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc etc don't get 30 cents on every dollar you spend on Amazon, or ordering Pizza, or on Apple Store purchases etc. Your piddly little phone is useless without the network, why shouldn't they get 30% of every dollar you spend using the network?

"They spent a lot of money on the infrastructure you use, and there's no reason to let others profit from it for free." Right?

Re: Anti competitive

[reanjr]

Sideload with XCode? So you have to buy a Macbook to load open source software onto the phone? Yeah, that's not a closed ecosystem at all...

Re: Anti competitive

[reanjr]

Apple a monopoly? They're like 13% of the market...

Re: Anti competitive

[nnull]

It's getting increasingly difficult to mitigate the privacy issues with google. Google Play store is now like a virus for Android. Half the things won't work without it.

I have an AOSP phone with fdroid only, it functions, but many manufacturers are making their android phones act completely broken when attempting this. Camera sucks ass, or some other quirks. Also, the apps are still limited on fdroid, many developers, including open source developers keep their latest version on the play store and completely forget about fdroid.

And then there are the applications you want to pay for on Google Play store and try to side load it with one the apps from fdroid that lets you pull it off. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I suspect this will end up not working soon, requiring you to install Google Playstore.

I suspect this situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Seeing what Google is doing with YouTube. If it does get worse, I'll just end up going back to a stand-alone camera and a basic phone. Streaming? I'll just tether like I used too.

Re:Anti competitive

[spire3661]

Users should be able to install any executable they choose on their devices, from any source. Why do i have to explain this to someone on Slashdot?

Re: Anti competitive

[TheFakeTimCook]

Sideload with XCode? So you have to buy a Macbook to load open source software onto the phone? Yeah, that's not a closed ecosystem at all...

Woosh!

You COMPLETELY disregarded the Cydia Impactor stuff.

Talk about Willful Blindness...

Re:Anti competitive

[torkus]

If Steam proves popular enough on Android and/or they come to some kind of arrangement apple may eventually fold.

Re: Anti competitive

[torkus]

As opposed to ticking off a box in your settings and tapping the apk in your downloads folder?

Oh wait, there is no downloads folder on Apple. Never mind.

Re:Anti competitive

[Stan92057]

"Should your teleco get a cut of all your telephone and online purchases because they built the platform you are using to make those purchases too".

Sony PlayStation blocks you from using you games online multiplayer function unless you pay for a monthly subscription to PlayStation plus...so ya not a phone but its being done. I thk Xbox does the same thng too thought i cant say 100% don't have an xbox

Re:Anti competitive

[known_coward_69]

Google won't certify your android phone for OHA unless it has google search, apps, etc. go read about what happened when Verizon and others were shipping android with Bing search. Google came down pretty hard

Re: Anti competitive

[TheFakeTimCook]

As opposed to ticking off a box in your settings and tapping the apk in your downloads folder?

Oh wait, there is no downloads folder on Apple. Never mind.

Actually, now that there's a semi-exposed filesystem in iOS 11, there might actually be something akin to a "Downloads" folder. The stuff has to go SOMEWHERE while it's being downloaded, right?

But now, it has to work JUST like your platform of choice, or the whole thing is invalid?

Riiiiiight.

Re:Anti competitive

[vux984]

I don't think finding an example of a market that's even worse really supports your argument.

I will say that consoles are a bit of special market in my eyes, because
a) they are strictly an optional luxury toy.
b) they are almost exclusively just for games.
c) people generally own one or more of them; this is popular, common and not particularly burdensome.

A phone is a much more general purpose tool. Sure it has games, but people use them for work too. And unlike a console, most people only will buy one, and it would be a serious burden to carry a bunch around to get access to different apps. So Apple behaving like their phones are a gamecube is a lot more obnoxious and anti-consumer than when nintendo does it.

But that's not a defense of the console makers. They really also should also be forced to open up more too.

Re: Anti competitive

[Cederic]

I'm a honking DD

double-dipper?
bra size?
designated driver?
navy destroyer?
daily diapers?

Actually, save your sanity, don't check that last one.

Re: Anti competitive

[Cederic]

You're a fucking comedian.

support - never had an android device go out of support before I replaced it
malware - never had any, ever, on android. Getting less on iOS would be tricky
flashlight - hit the 'flashlight' button that's built into the OS and it turns on the camera light. No permission changes required
privacy - so you want privacy but you use Siri. Thanks, I needed the laugh.

But when taken in aggregate, Apple is still the superior device to use

That's subjective, and I disagree. E.g. I can't actually use an Apple device because it refuses to let me run the software I want.

Google has made great strides in improve Android. They've improved privacy

Nah, they're still a fucking nightmare. I'd love a "stop fucking tracking me" option.

Re:Anti competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Splashtop already does this. How is steam link any different? Apple will be dragged over coals for this.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

You are an Apple fanboy. Come back when you turn your brain back on.

Re: Anti competitive

[tepples]

The article makes it seem like Cydia Impactor requires a $120 Windows license in which to run iTunes.

Re: Anti competitive

[tepples]

A Debian Developer is one step above Debian Maintainer in the Debian power structure. Becoming a DD requires, among other things, flying to a key signing party to meet other Debian Developers.

Re:Anti competitive

[tepples]

It was a hypothetical. Neither iOS nor Android blocks third-party search engines. But the effect of Apple's blocking of third-party app stores and web browser engines is as if Android blocked third-party search engines (which it doesn't).

Re:Anti competitive

[tepples]

Requiring manufacturers and carriers to preinstall Google apps doesn't lock out third-party competitors to Google apps. Apple, by contrast, locks out competitors to App Store and WebKit.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

That's a lot of writing attempting to justify a bad decision.

Re: Anti competitive

[Cederic]

Fair enough, but quite obscure for those of us that don't track the political structures of every open source group out there.

Re: Anti competitive

[Plumpaquatsch]

The article makes it seem like Cydia Impactor requires a $120 Windows license in which to run iTunes.

Yeah, one could get that impression if one ran Linux and didn't know about Wine - or dared to check if there's a Linux version, which there is.

Re: Anti competitive

[Plumpaquatsch]

The locked down company that puts their profits ahead of your usage

For values of "usage" that include playing PC games remotely on a phone. Fluffy, you are a hoot and a half.

Re: Anti competitive

[Plumpaquatsch]

malware - never had any, ever, on android.

And you know that because? Is it because you use android instead of Android?

Re: Anti competitive

[Plumpaquatsch]

That's a lot of writing attempting to justify a bad decision.

That's a rather short post to justify a much, much worse decision. Just without any justification.

Re: Anti competitive

[tepples]

Last I checked, iTunes was rated "Garbage" in Wine's AppDB.

Re: Anti competitive

[Plumpaquatsch]

Last I checked, iTunes was rated "Garbage" in Wine's AppDB.

That doesn't absolve you from checking for a Linux version - but what can one expect from a Debian Developer. Pah! Talk about Garbage indeed.

Re: Anti competitive

[tepples]

Google itunes on linux returns "How to Use iTunes on Linux" by Sam Costello, which states: "If the initial installation doesn't work properly, try an earlier version of iTunes. The only downside of this, of course, is that earlier versions may not have the latest features or support syncing with the latest iOS devices." If old iTunes doesn't work with your device model, and new iTunes doesn't work with your distribution's package of Wine, what's the next step?

Re: Anti competitive

[ilsaloving]

Really? And how many brain cells did you need to rub together to come up with that brilliant bit of prose? Not a heck of a lot, I'd wager.

Just because you are too stupid to understand that different people have different needs and requirements, doesn't make me an Apple fan. If you had even bothered looking at my post history, you would know that I am absolutely NOT an Apple fan. In fact, I am extremely critical of Apple, and my current iPhone may well be my last Apple device if they don't pull their heads out of their asses.

But nah, lets not let facts get in the way of your rabid frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Maybe you should go back to talking about how you have sex with the mothers of other PUBG players and let us adults get back to our discussion.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

You also have anger issues.

Re: Anti competitive

[ilsaloving]

Woooooooooooow, how you got modded informative is beyond me when you didn't give one single piece of concrete info in your entire post.

support - never had an android device go out of support before I replaced it

What does that even mean? You replace your phone yearly? Monthly?

The verifiable fact that the overwhelming majority of android manufacturers do not put out ANY updates at all. Once you buy their device, you're SOL unless there's a demonstrable hardware failure. Of the handful of major android manufacturers out there, a tiny few of those collectively agreed to provide 2 years of android updates, for *some* of their phones. Compare that to Apple that provides a solid *5* years worth of updates on their ENTIRE lineup.

Maybe you consider phones to be disposable commodity items, but I do not. If I buy a phone, I will continue to use that phone until it is no longer physically able to do what I need it to do, or my requirements change. Heck, I'm still using a Macbook Pro from 2011 because it still does what I need. (The fact that Apple's successive generations of macbooks have been worse and worse is also a contributing factor, but I digress...)

malware - never had any, ever, on android. Getting less on iOS would be tricky

So because YOU'VE never been infected, that means that malware doesn't exist? I've never have polio or malaria, but I sure as hell recognize that they exist.

The verifiable fact is that up until a few years ago, the google app store was a cesspool of malware. Non google app stores STILL are. Google realized they needed to do something, so they implemented controls similar to what Apple was already doing, and the malware situation improved considerably. Compare that to Apple that had implemented such controls early on, and as a result the incidents of malware on iOS was literally orders of magnitude less than Android.

Google has dramatically closed that gap, but the incidence of malware on the android platform is still higher than on iOS.

flashlight - hit the 'flashlight' button that's built into the OS and it turns on the camera light. No permission changes required

I thought it was obvious that I was being hyperbolic, specifically for the reason you described. I was referencing an earlier time when phones *didn't* come with built in flashlights, so people used apps that would max the brightness of your display to act as a pseudo-flashlight. Apparently you're too young to remember that, or too busy getting your hate on to care.

privacy - so you want privacy but you use Siri. Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Apparently you live in a very black and white world so you seem to have difficult understanding that privacy, like may other things in this world, operates on a gradiant. You share your bank account information with your spouse but not with a random person on the street. Similarly, there's a difference between asking Siri to play music vs allowing a third party application from slurping my entire contacts list and monitoring my location at all times. Apple makes their money on overpriced hardware. Google makes their money by siphoning as much personal info from you as they can. That single decision informs the entire philosophy behind their entire respective product portfolios.

There is no such thing as absolute privacy. You have to give up a certain measure of privacy just to step out your front door in the morning. The best you can do is look at what privacy features are offered and decide for yourself if the privacy cost is acceptable.

That's subjective, and I disagree. E.g. I can't actually use an Apple device because it refuses to let me run the software I want.

Oh good, we've finally gotten to the part of your post that is actually reasonable and not some ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. It is completely reasonable to a couple of overwhelming re

Re: Anti competitive

[ilsaloving]

And you're a troll.

Re: Anti competitive

[phantomfive]

Of course. Enjoy!

wow, nice foot gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Many analysts believe Apple could lose revenue if they allow Steam's app

Did these "analysts" think about what the consequences might be for apple's vendor lock-in if valve rewrites this thing in wasm and distributes it over any standards compliant browser instead?

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[Tsolias]

or what will happen if Valve fights back with withdrawing form Mac OS?
or by making all your iOS games for "free", if you purchased a special more expensive version of the game that unlocks the "free" iOS game.
There are many ways to circumvent this, of fight back.
Check alphabets failure on Youtube. They started demonetizing videos for ridiculous reasons, they reduced the cut of the creators and what happened? a lot of millions per month are bypassing alphabet's hands and travel via patreon.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[Don Wills]

Yep. I've been an Apple fan for 20 years, but I finally decided to take a stand against Apple's policy of no side loading of commercially purchased software. I traded my last iPhone for a Google Pixel. iOS *is* a superior operating system, but I can live with Android. If Apple ever tries the same thing with macOS, I'll be gone for good.

Re: wow, nice foot gun

[NicknameUnavailable]

Why doesn’t Slashdot support standards like Unicode?

Because you're on the American internet, not some commie connection.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[drinkypoo]

or what will happen if Valve fights back with withdrawing form Mac OS?

then they will miss out on revenue and apple users will miss out on games, and they will blame valve.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[TheFakeTimCook]

Yep. I've been an Apple fan for 20 years, but I finally decided to take a stand against Apple's policy of no side loading of commercially purchased software. I traded my last iPhone for a Google Pixel. iOS *is* a superior operating system, but I can live with Android. If Apple ever tries the same thing with macOS, I'll be gone for good.

Apple has allowed Side Loading since iOS 8.

Re: wow, nice foot gun

[nnull]

You can actually change that in your settings on you IOS device, then your apostrophes will show up fine '''''. Put your point is still valid, Apple forces everyone to use Safari. Firefox for IOS is just Safari with a Firefox look. Can't even use ublock because Apple wants to force me to see ads.

Re: wow, nice foot gun

[nnull]

They'll just force block steam on their devices then, because they actually can. They control the browser. Just look how they handle YouTube, it's very annoying.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[Don Wills]

Bzzt. You can only side load open source apps. My post was about "commercially purchased software".

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[TheFakeTimCook]

Bzzt. You can only side load open source apps. My post was about "commercially purchased software".

Actually, I believe the .ipa files you download/install with Cydia Impactor are pre-compiled binaries.

Nice try.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[Cederic]

How does that work? Can I go to a website, download the binaries for an app via my in-phone web browser, install and run it?

That's what I can do on every other OS, so I'm assuming iOS is the same?

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[TheFakeTimCook]

Not quite.

If you have a Mac, you can Compile and Run (or Install and Run) source, and maybe binaries via XCode.

It you have a Mac or Windows machine, you can use Cydia Impactor to go to sites that are hosting ".ipa" files (which are pre-compiled), and use Impactor to install them on your iOS device.

Both methods assume you are using a computer to make the install happen.

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[Don Wills]

I am a commercial software developer. I want to build a closed source app, distribute the .ipa from my server after a customer pays me, and then the customer installs it on an iPhone. No XCode. No magical web sites. Just my distribution mechanism (email or HTTPS download). It would be acceptable to require a desktop computer as an intermediary, but it must be my software that runs on the desktop, not some magical program from who knows what. Is this possible? (I don't think so, but I'd like to be proven wrong.) And don't tell me to just use the AppStore. My application does not meet Apple requirements (it provides for in-app software upgrades).

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[TheFakeTimCook]

I am a commercial software developer. I want to build a closed source app, distribute the .ipa from my server after a customer pays me, and then the customer installs it on an iPhone. No XCode. No magical web sites. Just my distribution mechanism (email or HTTPS download). It would be acceptable to require a desktop computer as an intermediary, but it must be my software that runs on the desktop, not some magical program from who knows what.

Is this possible? (I don't think so, but I'd like to be proven wrong.)

And don't tell me to just use the AppStore. My application does not meet Apple requirements (it provides for in-app software upgrades).

You are quickly exceeding my knowledge on this subject, sorry!

I believe that Cydia Impactor is Open Source; so you should be able to distribute it, rebrand it, etc.

Why is it so important that you have in-app updates? There is very little reason to do that. Can you explain why you are so adamant about that?

Re:wow, nice foot gun

[dissy]

It would be acceptable to require a desktop computer as an intermediary, but it must be my software that runs on the desktop, not some magical program from who knows what. Is this possible? (I don't think so, but I'd like to be proven wrong.) And don't tell me to just use the AppStore. My application does not meet Apple requirements (it provides for in-app software upgrades).

Check out the "iPhone Configuration Utility" published by Apple (there are win/osx versions)

Since iOS 8 it lets one "side load" an .ipa or an .app bundle to an iPhone.
The former intended mostly for corporations to distribute "enterprise licensed" apps to their fleet of devices, and the latter intended mostly for developers, so with your particular use case falling somewhere in the middle of those it's hard to say if it will be ideal for you.

I use it for provisioning devices at work. Each "profile" you create can be applied to a connected phone, can be remote pushed on pre-registered cells, and generates ".mobileconfig" files that can be delivered to a device via web download, email attachment, etc.

One word of warning, devices not under your own control are going to prompt the user to trust your .mobileconfig certificate and key when being installed by them.
The best I can describe how it looks would be similar to accepting a self-signed https certificate in a browser (before chrome started hiding that ability at least)

Also your app won't have access to any of the AppStore hooks for analytics. If your app doesn't "phone home" (which users tend to hate), you won't even know someone installed it this way.
Being that you specified a closed source program and purchasing from you, it implies to me there may be piracy concerns with this. Not having ever pirated apps, or made apps to be pirated, I can't really expand on how easy or not this is or what can be done on your side, but I figured you'd want to be aware of that.

Also on the end-user trust subject, when you run the config util you'll see a bunch of categories of things the tool can change, similar to windows group policies pushed out to desktops.
But be aware that each category you have setup in your .mobileconfig file will be listed out when the user is prompted to accept and trust your cert.

So don't go thinking you can setup an app install profile along with a "secret" web browser proxy setting profile, to try and trick people into thinking it is just to install your program. They will be informed of the fact a web browser setting profile is there too.
This tool lets you modify most any setting available to the user, and plenty of settings that are hidden (like cellular carrier profiles), so requires a huge amount of trust from the one making those .mobileconfigs. If that trust is abused, you'll likely be labeled a malware pusher, evil hacker, or worse.

I'm not implying anything about you personally here, just throwing that out there.
Android users are used to this sort of permissions abuse and simply avoid you on the play store without complaining much.
Apple users tend to bitch about such things loudly to anyone that will listen. Including reporting such behavior to Apple, which isn't likely to help your "can't get app approved" situation any.

Confusing

[TraumaFox]

I don't understand any of the logic here. Steam already exists as a smartphone app which allows me to access the Steam store, purchase games, and even remotely install them on my PC, so obviously the "store within a store" reasoning is already moot. Steam Link is just a thing that would let me stream the video/audio of a game playing on my PC to another device, in this case my iPhone/iPad. Arguing that Steam Link on its own somehow constitutes competing with the App Store is nonsense; I could do the same thing with any other remote desktop app, and in either case the playable library is going to be very limited by the lack of control options on a smartphone, more or less forcing me to use an external input device anyway. I am still required to be on the same local network and still have to run these games on my PC in order to stream them, so the only real function of the Steam Link app is extending my PC's display to a mobile screen.

Re:Confusing

[null etc.]

The difference here is the composition of two separate technologies (content purchasing and content streaming) into a single application that would reduce Apple's grip on the portable entertainment marketplace.

If some pre-existing "screen sharing" app were to suddenly incorporate a way to purchase applications and games to be remotely accessed by the screen sharing app, Apple would take a similar stance.

Re:Confusing

[Luthair]

If you think back there was a lot of buzz around some similar issues for Kindle. As a non-Apple user I'm not sure they ever resolved the issue allowing users to purchase books from their iCrap.

Re:Confusing

[TraumaFox]

According to the article, Steam Link would have been a separate application solely for streaming games. Even if both apps were consolidated, the notion that I'd be buying games "for my phone" is still wrong, because the only way for this to work is through a PC which again only lets me use my Apple device as a remote screen within my own house. In reality, the Steam Link app was more likely intended for iPads to benefit from a larger screen and an attached keyboard. It would have been a simple convenience for existing Steam users, nothing more.

It should also be pointed out that Steam is available for purchasing and playing games directly on Mac OS.

Re:Confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference here is the composition of two separate technologies (content purchasing and content streaming) into a single application

Except that it isn't. Steam Link (at least on Android) is just a content streaming app. It will stream whatever the in-focus window is on your PC. You can even move your mouse around on your PC and see it moving around in the Steam Link app.

Steam Link allows for content purchasing to exactly the same degree as every other remote desktop app.

Re:Confusing

[mjwx]

I don't understand any of the logic here. Steam already exists as a smartphone app which allows me to access the Steam store, purchase games, and even remotely install them on my PC, so obviously the "store within a store" reasoning is already moot. Steam Link is just a thing that would let me stream the video/audio of a game playing on my PC to another device, in this case my iPhone/iPad. Arguing that Steam Link on its own somehow constitutes competing with the App Store is nonsense; I could do the same thing with any other remote desktop app, and in either case the playable library is going to be very limited by the lack of control options on a smartphone, more or less forcing me to use an external input device anyway. I am still required to be on the same local network and still have to run these games on my PC in order to stream them, so the only real function of the Steam Link app is extending my PC's display to a mobile screen.

If it works, it means less revenue from Apple selling you games through their app store.

Re:Confusing

[lexman098]

If some pre-existing "screen sharing" app were to suddenly incorporate a way to purchase applications and games to be remotely accessed by the screen sharing app, Apple would take a similar stance.

You mean like opening a browser within the screen sharing app and buying something that way? Is VNC banned on iPhones?

Re:Confusing

[TraumaFox]

There is no competition, direct or indirect. Steam Link would only allow me to use my mobile device as a screen for my PC on the same local network, i.e. in the same environment where I could just sit at my PC. The only difference is that I could use my mobile device to sit in my living room or kitchen instead of at my desktop. Steam Link does not create or allow for any unique circumstances in which my likelihood of playing an iOS game decreases.

Re:Confusing

[mjwx]

If we were talking about the same games, sure. But, for vast majority of games, iOS games are not Steam games.

Not really. The games do not have to be the same in order to compete for the same Quid/Euro/Dollar.

They occupy the same market. If this were permitted... and works as promised (which is something I doubt, we've been promised streaming games before and every time they've failed to deliver) then some people will spend more money on Steam rather than on App Store games simply because the PC game can offer a better product.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

No, they do. Microsoft Remode Desktop, various VNC clients, AirDisplay, and a handful of others that you can find with a quick search of the App Store. The ones I explicitly listed are ones I've either used in the past or currently use on one or more iPads; they are all currently available in the App Store, many for free.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

They actually occupy very different markets. Games that install and run as apps on your phone occupy the portable (as in they come with you, in your pocket, everywhere you go) gaming market while games that install and run on your PC and are streamed over the Steam Link app, which requires a high-speed and low-latency connection back to your PC (e.g. that you are on the same LAN) occupy the desktop gaming market.

I'm not buying games for my PC so that I can play them when I'm away from home, because that's simply not possible; to fulfill that purpose, I buy games on my phone. This is true regardless of the existence of Steam Link.

We can debate all day whether a PC game or a phone game is a better product, or I can cut to the chase and point out that a PC game that is useless to me, because my PC is at home and I'm somewhere else, can't possibly be a better product than a game installed on my phone, that I can play right now because I have my phone with me.

I suppose it comes down to how you define "better", but part of that definition should probably include the ability to actually use the product. Viewed in that light, even if we agree that PC games are better when we have access to them, we also must recognize the fact that there are countless scenarios in which we do not have access to them and phone games are better on that basis alone.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

Think about it. Why would you settle for an iOS game when you could use your mobile to play a "real" game, using Steam Link?

Because Steam Link only works in scenarios where you could just as easily be sitting in front of your PC. When you're not in one of those scenarios, you "settle" for an iOS (or Android) game, because the PC games aren't an option. When you are in one of those scenarios, well... Think about it. Why would you settle for an iOS game when you could use your mobile to play a "real" game, sitting in front of your PC?

I see Steam Link decreasing game sales in the Apple platform.

Only because people who want it will have to leave iOS in favor of Android. If Apple allowed it on their platform, this wouldn't be an issue, for the reason stated above.

At first it doesn't seem as a competitor, but indirectly it is.

No, for the reason stated above, it really is not.

Re:Confusing

[TheFakeTimCook]

So remote desktop apps do not exist in Apple's app store? That is actually a serious question that I do not know the answer to. If it turns out that Apple bans all remote desktop apps, at least the "omg Apple is unfairly targeting Valve!" angle goes away.

Lots of them. I use "Jump".

Works with both RDP and VNC Servers. FYI, Mac "Screen Sharing" uses VNC on the standard Port. You can use any old VNC app to do "Remote Desktop" on a Mac. The only thing that's kind of annoying is that there is no way in the GUI of MacOS to change the VNC Port; so if you have a Router that doesn't support Port Translation during Forwarding, and you have more than one Mac on your Network, you have to edit a .plist file in MacOS' "Terminal" for those "secondary" Macs to change the port they listen to
  for VNC.

But I digress.

Re:Confusing

[Cederic]

Steam Link only works in scenarios where you could just as easily be sitting in front of your PC.

The fact that there's a market for Steam Link demonstrates that you're wrong.

You may not have such a use, but very evidently others do.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

I didn't say that was the only use, I said that was the only scenario in which it actually works. Not the only scenario in which it works as in works for me, but the only one in which it works as in functions. This doesn't allow you to play your PC games while on the go, it literally requires you to be on the same LAN.

The fact that you think I'm wrong demonstrates that you don't know what Steam Link is. It's a low-latency remote desktop specialized to work better for gaming workloads, nothing more; if you're able to get low enough (sub-millisecond) latency for it to be able to work, you're able to be sitting in front of the PC that's actually running the games, simple as that.

I also never said I didn't have a use for it; I actually use similar functionality on a near daily basis.

Re:Confusing

[Cederic]

I said that was the only scenario in which it actually works

I know. I pointed out however that other people disagree with you sufficiently to buy and use the technology, thus proving that you are in fact wrong.

You are wrong. Get over it.

This doesn't allow you to play your PC games while on the go, it literally requires you to be on the same LAN.

Not strictly true, but primarily, yes. However: Being on the same LAN is very fucking different to

scenarios where you could just as easily be sitting in front of your PC

Meanwhile,

The fact that you think I'm wrong demonstrates that you don't know what Steam Link is

The fact that I've provided the evidence that demonstrates that you're wrong means that whether I know what Steam Link is or not, you're wrong.

You're wrong, get over it.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

No, what it actually means is that you misunderstood what I was saying. That is, you are wrong. Get over it.

Re:Confusing

[Cederic]

Well, you're being obtuse and stupid now.

Your point was that Steam Link had no purpose as people would either game natively on their device or sit at their PC to game.

My point is that people buy Steam Link because they find the two options to which you want to constrain them to be too limiting.

Thus, you're talking shit and have failed miserably to address my core argument that people actually use Steam Link.

Re:Confusing

[BronsCon]

Well, you're being obtuse and stupid now.

And you're being a pedantic prick.

Your point was that Steam Link had no purpose as people would either game natively on their device or sit at their PC to game

Thank you for confirming that you missed my point entirely. My point was, actually, that Steam Link wouldn't cut into iOS game sales because scenarios still (abundantly) exist in which people will wish to play games while Steam Link simply will not operate.

My point is that people buy Steam Link because they find the two options to which you want to constrain them to be too limiting.

Well, then, your point is entirely off base because people don't buy Steam Link. It's a free app. Yes, there is a piece of hardware with the same name, but that is not what is being discussed here.

Thus, you're talking shit and have failed miserably to address my core argument that people actually use Steam Link.

I don't need to address that point, as I never argued otherwise. You're the one who's talking shit here, since you apparently have no clue what is even being discussed. Come back once you've figured it out.

Classic Apple

[pablo_max]

I find it curious that when Google or MS actively prevent any competitive service on their products the Apple fanbois scream anti-trust. However Apple has a pretty good chuck of the mobile market in terms of manufacturers and routinely and actively prevents competitive products.
Every tried to use Google maps or Waze with carplay? Nope. Terms and conditions say you are not allowed to make a navi platform for it.
Alternative app store? Nope. Not allowed.

I could not personally care any less about the restrictions on Apple products since I do not use them. It's just silly though that Android gets anti-trust lawsuits when Apple is far more anti-competition in their actions.

Re:Classic Apple

[Freischutz]

I find it curious that when Google or MS actively prevent any competitive service on their products the Apple fanbois scream anti-trust. However Apple has a pretty good chuck of the mobile market in terms of manufacturers and routinely and actively prevents competitive products. Every tried to use Google maps or Waze with carplay? Nope. Terms and conditions say you are not allowed to make a navi platform for it. Alternative app store? Nope. Not allowed.

I could not personally care any less about the restrictions on Apple products since I do not use them. It's just silly though that Android gets anti-trust lawsuits when Apple is far more anti-competition in their actions.

Quite frankly, as long as I have a Bluetooth access point in my car with a relatively new Bluetooth version, I could not care less about Car Play or any other in-car entertainment system. I just hook up my cellphone to the Bluetooth link, stick the smartphone/tablet in a holder with a built-in wireless charger and use the gadget which then becomes my in-car entertainment and navigation system. The only down side is a bit of audio lag due to buffering in the car's audio system and the fact that Bluetooth audio apparently suffers from quality loss due to compression. Having said that, the speakers in my car are pretty crap like most OEM car speakers and I'm not an audiophile and thus would not know grade-A audio quality if it jumped up and bit me in the balls. When it comes to audio all I know is the difference between awful, OK and amazing and the setup in my car rates solidly 'OK' and will suffice for my purposes.

Re:Security?

[Trongy]

The steam link app doesn't let you install/run games directly on your phone/tablet. It just lets you remotely play a game that's running on your PC. Threre's a beta available for Android. Personally I can't see the point unless it was to stream to an Apple TV or Android enabled TV.

Re:The least complicated answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam Link isn't an emulator. It's essentially a fancy remote control for your computer which is running Steam on it. The game runs on your computer (as they normally would) but the display is streamed to the receiving device (Steam Link) and then input from the receiving device pushed back to the computer. Apple isn't blocking Steam Link for being an emulator. There are likely other motivations at work.

Re:What's the use case anyway?

[Gilgaron]

These are letting you play a game that requires your desktop's hardware while you sit on the couch with the tablet. thin client/server vs fat client of playing at the desktop.

no high horses here

[supernova87a]

Well, what I think you'll find here is that when money comes into the equation, neither / both sides share fault in what's going on, and you're being marketed to using "principles" while it's just a hidden contract dispute. So don't buy the "it's Apple trying to maintain a closed ecosystem" hype, etc. It's a little bit of that, but more about just the payment terms.

Take as an analogy the periodic squabbles, for example, between MLB, or NFL or whatever league and the cables companies not broadcasting their games. The sports leagues say that it's because the cable/TV companies are trying to stop their access to the public and being anticompetitive. The TV networks will say that the league is against "the American pasttime tradition" and being unfair about how to show the games. They make it sound like a principled stand about access or monopoly (or closed ecosystem?), yada yada yada. Those are all marketing words being traded.

But it all comes down to money and the price of the deal. One side doesn't want to pay the other so much. Get it?

Same here in all likelihood. Apple wants to have game companies pay for it's ecosystem administration (which by the way is pretty much free if you don't charge any money for an app, and free to develop software for -- can you think of some other examples of software where you have to pay just to join / get the development environment?) . The game company doesn't want to pay so much.

Steam could easily agree to pay / charge their micropayments through Apple's method. Apple could lower its rates.

Who's at fault then? Say all you want. It's as much the buyer's + seller's fault that you choose to assign when you want to buy a house and it costs too much, and both sides accuse each other of not working to close the deal.

Re:no high horses here

[oh_my_080980980]

Seriously? Look up antitrust. Apple is preventing Steam's app on their phone because they fear losing profits. Sorry but Apple can't do that. It's against the law.

Do some research before posting.

Yeah but...

[dohzer]

Yeah, but at least their hardware looks good and isn't as powerful and costs a lot.

Put it on Cydia

[magusxxx]

I'm sure the jailbreakers will appreciate it.

Anti-Trust!

[oh_my_080980980]

Sorry Apple this is clear antitrust violation. You can't prevent STEAM from having an app on your phone because you fear a loss of profits. That's competition. You already allow other vender's apps on your phone. That's called precedence. Suck it up or fuck off.

Re:Anti-Trust!

[Khashishi]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. Apple customers deserve what they get.

Pay

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Reminds me of arguments about who owns inventions an invented AI invents.

Can Apple get a cut of in-store-in-store sales? How deep does it go?

Re: The least complicated answer...

[BronsCon]

What is the Backslashdot site of which you speak?

Re:What's the use case anyway?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Who said anything about a Mac? You can play Steam games on a mac, but a top end gaming PC has hardware a Mac could never have due to Apple's walled garden.

This is one more reason I will never buy another Apple device. Part of their reason for not allowing Steam Link is I'm sure because they DO discourage free applications because 30% of nothing is nothing.

Re:This doesn't make sense now...

[TheFakeTimCook]

apple plans to copy what Value is doing; make a far inferior version of it; claim they invented the whole thing and then sit back as their mindless drone cultists claim apple is the best. Thats apple 101.

No. That game-plan belongs to Microsoft, actually.

PC games on Ios?

[bn-7bc]

Hmm I did not know that IOS had an inel ISA, I though Apple had an ARM lisemce, are we talking about some kind of emulation here? Leaving that to one side, how. many PC games ar compatibel with touch input and can run on the Ipad/iphones amarativly weak hw? This was not meant to be sarcastick or funny, the rest of this post however...
But here I go applying logic again, bad apple for asking 30% of revenue, capitalist swine etc

So who's device is it then? Clue: not yours.

[Bearhouse]

OK, so I can buy a cheaper phone, (probably Android) and get...replaceable batteries, SD-card reader, dual SIM, headphone jack (insert standard /. anti-Apple bitch-list here)
Then (even without side-loading) install pretty much what I want; with more choice.

(Android apps: 3.5 million; iOS apps: 2.2 million.)

Or, I can pay much more, and get less choice.

Huh?

Typing this as someone who has both types of devices, and actually in general much prefer iOS.

Re: The least complicated answer...

[TheFakeTimCook]

Steam link is not an emulator. There's no way any mobile phone could emulate a desktop computer... Which should have been painfully obvious to anyone on \.

It's a desktop streaming / miracast style app which requires a desktop to stream from.

Steam is obviously more than just that; since there are multitudinous VNC/Remote Desktop Apps on the iOS App Store.

Re:Why in the hell are people using Apple still?

[TheFakeTimCook]

Stop developing on Apple. Seriously, 30 PERCENT cut ? Holy shit kids are you all this retarded? There are other options.

Why do I get the feeling Apple rather enjoys being a crack dealer in this transaction. So much reward for so little risk.

Isn't that exactly what Google charges for a Play Store listing?

Re: Same reason Steve Jobs killed Flash...

[LocalH]

Appleâ(TM)s App Store didnâ(TM)t exist then, and they werenâ(TM)t planning on having one. Flash was disallowed because it was resource and battery hungry. App Store came later.

Re:RDP?

[Cederic]

Yeah, it's curiously inconsistent.

Not sure I'd want to game over RDP though :)

Re:Why in the hell are people using Apple still?

[Cederic]

Well, sell via legacy retail and you'll see 5% returns on the gross sale price.

The Apple app store (and equivalents, like Google Play and Steam itself) will let you receive over 50% of the gross.

Sure, the storefronts are getting rich through this. They also offer customer services, payment facilities, automated update mechanisms, instrumentation, versioning support, download servers and other features.

The downside isn't the 30%, it's the effective monopoly. For games I can skip Steam, buy from GOG, HumbleBundle, EA, Ubisoft or others. For Android I can skip Google and install F-Droid. What are the options for iOS?

Nine times the store revenue per user

[tepples]

Even if Apple is 13 percent of the mobile user base, it can still make a majority of app store revenue. Apple App Store's revenue per user is nine times that of Google Play Store (source: "Apple is pulling further ahead of Google in this one key area" by Kif Leswing), and 0.13 times 9 is more than 0.87 times 1. Or what has changed in the nearly two years since the publication of Leswing's article?

Re: Nine times the store revenue per user

[reanjr]

Even if you want to compare apps instead of devices, the Google Play Store has more apps and more people downloading apps than the Apple App Store.

Re: Nine times the store revenue per user

[tepples]

Though Apple App Store has fewer apps than Google Play Store, these fewer apps still produce more dollars of revenue.

Re: Nine times the store revenue per user

[reanjr]

But fewer downloads, and so less market penetration.

iTurd

[bigmacx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDFzTOvfTk

It is amazing how many techies buy into this closed eco system, but even more so, how so many enviro hippie leftists do. I love seeing riot photos of them breaking into a Starbucks holding iPhones. Apple couldn't be any more anti-freedom. It has always been, since the start, the anti-choice choice. Their hardware/software for years was so closed. OS X seemed a hopeful bright spot but then we got Cloud Services and they knew they had us.

Example: try to share a mass amount of locally-stored photos between Apple devices on your home WiFi/ServerFarm. Used to be possible out-of-the-box on OS X Photos. They took it out a few versions back. So now if you've got 200GB of photos to share with your family, in your own house, you gotta upload them all to iCloud so the person sitting next to you on your own home network can look at them.

Personally I have a Macbook and run Linux Mint (triple booting as needed with rEFInd) because Apple does make the best laptop hardware (still hate that I don't get a full keyboard though). Beyond that, I only choose or use Apple if I've got a work obligation requiring it

Market penetration doesn't pay rent

[tepples]

Market penetration doesn't put a roof over a developer's head. Dollars do. The dollars per user ratio between Apple App Store and Google Play Store is so high that it overwhelms the latter's greater market penetration.