Cloud Wars: Apple, Microsoft Lock Horns Again Over Gaming Apps

Apple vs. Microsoft: The Battle for Cloud Gaming on iOS

In the ever-evolving landscape of gaming, the battle for dominance has reached a new frontier: cloud gaming. This technology allows players to stream high-quality games directly to their devices without the need for expensive hardware, opening up gaming access to a wider audience. However, a fierce legal battle is brewing between Apple and Microsoft, with both companies vying for control over how cloud gaming services operate on iOS.

The conflict centers around Apple’s App Store policies. Apple, despite previously restricting cloud gaming services to web apps, made a significant shift earlier this year, allowing companies like Xbox Cloud Gaming and GeForce Now to offer native apps on iPhones and iPads. However, this appears to be a strategic move with certain limitations designed to maintain Apple’s control over the iOS ecosystem.

Microsoft, determined to bring its Xbox Cloud Gaming service to iOS, argues that Apple’s changes don’t go far enough. They claim that Apple’s App Store guidelines remain restrictive, hindering their ability to operate a fully functional native app. This contention is based on specific Apple policies, including:

1. The In-app Purchase (IAP) Requirement: Apple mandates that multiplatform services like Xbox Cloud Gaming must make all content, subscriptions, and features available as in-app purchases, subjecting them to Apple’s 30% commission fee. Microsoft argues that this high commission makes their service economically unsustainable. They believe it discourages third-party game developers from participating, as recoding games to comply with the IAP requirement is costly and complex.

2. Restriction on External Links: Apple’s guidelines prevent app developers from linking to external websites to enable subscription payments. Although an exception exists for "Reader" apps, cloud gaming services don’t qualify. Microsoft argues that this policy, in combination with the IAP requirement, suffocates their ability to offer competitive subscription options.

3. Lack of Transparency: Microsoft criticizes Apple’s ambiguity surrounding cloud gaming app development guidelines. They claim that Apple’s restrictions are vague and lack clarity, creating an unpredictable environment for developers looking to bring their services to the iOS platform.

In contrast, Apple defends its stance, stating that they support cloud gaming through web apps and that the existing guidelines are straightforward. They highlight the success of Antstream, a retro gaming service that has launched on the App Store, as evidence of their commitment to cloud gaming. However, Apple’s reliance on a single example, particularly a niche service like Antstream, cannot be considered a robust rebuttal to Microsoft’s concerns. They seem to be overlooking the significant differences between a retro game streaming service and a major cloud gaming platform like Xbox Cloud Gaming.

Apple’s argument that they have "never approved a gaming app to take advantage of the Reader Rule" is a misleading tactic. In essence, Apple is claiming that a rule doesn’t exist because they consistently reject any application that attempts to use it. This argument ignores the legitimate need for clarity and flexibility in their guidelines to accommodate different gaming models. While Apple emphasizes their proactive outreach to developers, they fail to address the fundamental issues raised by Microsoft concerning the economic feasibility, technical limitations, and lack of transparency in their current policies.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a UK regulatory body, is conducting a market investigation into mobile browsers, browser engines, and the distribution of cloud gaming services. The CMA is considering several potential remedies to address competition concerns, including:

• Read-only Access: Allowing cloud gaming apps to operate on iOS without requiring in-app purchases or subscriptions, potentially bypassing the need for developers to recode their games.
• Alternative Payment Systems: Enabling cloud gaming service providers to integrate their own in-app payment systems, reducing reliance on Apple’s platform.
• Guideline Amendments: Requiring Apple to modify their App Store guidelines to remove technical restrictions on cloud gaming app development.

The CMA aims to publish a provisional decision report this November, followed by a final report in February or March of next year. This timeframe gives both Microsoft and Apple ample opportunity to continue their legal battles and argue their respective positions.

The struggle between Apple and Microsoft for control over cloud gaming on iOS is far from over. This conflict underscores a broader issue: the need for fair and transparent policies within app stores. As cloud gaming continues to evolve, it’s crucial for developers to have a level playing field where they can freely innovate and bring their services to a wider audience without facing unnecessary barriers. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for the future of gaming, particularly in the mobile space, determining whether it will be driven by innovation or by monopolistic control.

Article Reference