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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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: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:Anti-Trust!

[Khashishi]

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