It's basically analogous to what Valve is doing with steam. Windows has a monopoly on PC gaming and Valve does not want to be subject to any future restrictions or requirements that may be enforced in the future, so they funded andfacilitated gaming on Linux based PCs.
Analogously, Microsoft doesn't want to be subject to the duopoly of Google and Apple with mobile (gaming), so they want their cloud steaming platform available on competitors.
First: I'm happy that Steam has put effort into Linux!
Then, as a bit of a tangent:
Windows only has a "monopoly" on PC gaming because Apple refuses to licence their operating system for non-Apple hardware - and because Linux just isn't mainstream enough.
If you could buy OSX just like you can buy Windows and install it on your home built PC, I'm confident the landscape would at least be somewhat different.
(It is certainly possible to install osx yourself on your own PC hardware, if you put your pirate hat on and are happy with massively outdated GPU drivers etc - or at least it was half a decade ago when I checked last).
Of course Apple would also have to develop some care for gamers.
“Windows has a lock on PC gaming because macOS isn’t available for PCs. Of course, macOS would have to radically chamge to be even remotely usable as a gaming competitor to Windows.”
If macOS is that bad for gaming, no gamer is going to use it even if it was available for PCs.
Disagree. My argument is that Apple have been ignoring it pretty much completely.
If a significant user base of PC users had OSX, then with a bit of TLC/ development from Apple I'm sure it'd be a very viable platform for gaming as well.
I.e. Microsoft are going a crap load of work behind the scenes to provide the best gaming experience, so Apple would have to step up their (sorry) game to compete.
> Disagree. My argument is that Apple have been ignoring it pretty much completely.
Worse than ignorning really. Games for windows from years ago largely still work. Games for Mac Os X don't because Apple regularly breaks compatability. This means the long tail of late sales won't happen without more developer effort, which isn't usually available.
I second toast0's point. Apple didn't ignore desktop gaming, they actively gave the middle finger to the whole community, repeatedly, and iOS was the only bridge that was thrown to restore some kind of decent relationship.
See nvidia basically banned from the macos ecosystem, or the whole fight with Epic as they couldn't come to any resemblance of a compromise.
Imo the bigger point that you’re missing is that Mac OS wouldn’t be Mac OS without limiting its hardware compatibility. Its stability and usability is directly tied to just having to support so few hardware profiles compared to the nightmare Microsoft has to deal with for decades.
Also as others have already pointed out, Apple has historically hated games. The only reason they tolerate it now is because of the massive revenue it brings with iOS
I think that apple is going to break into gaming in a big way in the next 5-10 years. A small target range of carefully-curated hardware is a HUGE advantage in game development.
Devs will be able to optimize for apple machines in much the same way that they currently optimize for consoles, and you'll be able to know exactly how a game will perform on your system before buying it.
There is only so much optimization you can do before you run into the limits of the hardware.
I wouldn’t mind a 30% markup for an apple gaming pc, but based on the markups the currently charge for compute… I’d expect the top of the line $2k PC I built this year to cost $4k-$6k if it came from apple. I’m extremely skeptical of the vision for the same reason. You need raw power for driving high end displays.
They will probably compete in the console market though. Kinda like how their headphones compete in the “rich but not knowledgeable about audio” demographic. Actually, I’m kinda selling my self on this. I should buy more apple stock.
They're not top end AAA games by any means, but both Factorio and World of Warcraft have highly performant native Silicon builds that drive my high refresh rate display @ 1440p quite happily, without even making the fans spin up noticeably.
Microsoft poured money into game tools since the 90s, published a large library of in-house games themselves, litigated and demolished it's competition (both Apple and Linux), and courted every single hardware manufacturer in existence. XBox as a console came into being from this massive investment.
> because Apple refuses to licence their operating system for non-Apple hardware
Reminder that Microsoft poached Bungie, who developed Marathon and others exclusively for Macintosh, to develop Halo for PC and XBox exclusive releases.
> Windows only has a "monopoly" on PC gaming because Apple refuses to licence their operating system for non-Apple hardware - and because Linux just isn't mainstream enough.
I mean, defend it or don't but it doesn't make it a not-monopoly that its competitors are not able to compete effectively for various reasons.
AAPL can, but doesnt. A lot of hand waving over hardware, is misdirection. AAPL can curate limited support for consumer hardware same as their custom hardware, but they dont want to negotiate AND stop relying on ridiculous markup. The issue is momentum. AAPL has demonstrated this is the way and gaming...with new random features becoming popular based on consumer hardware breakthroughs, doesnt feed into their existing, stable, pipelines of profit.
TL;DR Gaming is partially fed by innovation in hardware and AAPL hates that.
I have no idea what you are saying. I don't think we are having an exchange about the same things, or at least not the same context.
ie The reason AAPL's board doesn't want to support 3rd party hardware, which is usually based around the newest gaming technology from potential competitors, is some opposite reason?
> it doesn't make it (MSFT) a not-monopoly that its competitors are not able to compete effectively for various reasons.
My assertion is that AAPL could, but won't. The monopoly of MSFT in the gaming sphere is because of a sort of happy coincidence between a massive company willing to support third party hardware (MSFT) and another massive company that depends on not supporting it, to maintain a stranglehold on their market (AAPL) and all the minor players who can't afford to support hardware at scale for a prolonged period of time, to compete with MSFT...even thought a few have for a short time and fell behind or were acquired.
I mean, Apple's refusal to license their OS for non-Apple hardware is unambiguously the correct decision. From Apple's perspective there are countless downsides and zero upsides to doing otherwise.
Apple is going to be huge in gaming in the mid-term future. If you have a limited, controlled hardware range, developers can tune Apple-targeted games in the same way that they tune console games. They can guarantee that everything works exactly as intended, which has been the achilles' heel of PC gaming since time immemorial.
I grew up a hardcore gamer and vehement apple-hater, but over the past decade, Apple has become the most competent consumer hardware company on earth and I'm super excited for the future here.
I just can’t imagine Apple building and selling a replacement for a 4080 gpu and top line amd/intel cpu. And if they do they markup would be insane. Look at what they currently charge for compute as an example. Price vs performance ratio between apple and pc is too high to be viable.
So if apple does get into gaming it’s going to be incredibly gimped and ten years behind the tech curve. (Or at the level of consoles) Which might be competitive against that market.
But I am extremely skeptical that apple will compete with top of the line pc gaming in a meaningful way. Pushing +100 fps at 4k is not easy or cheap, and if apple wants to win enthusiasts (or even have decent looking VR for the vision) they’ll need to offer significant compute at a competitive price. So basically, they’ll need to completely change their economics model… and I don’t think they’ll do that.
Even with Apple's "limited" HW, just on the iPhone it's like Sony releasing a new PlayStation every year. Add Mac in and it's like Sony's past decade in consoles every 12-18 months. Plus you add in the fact iOS users balk at paying $5 for a game, Mac gamers are a blip and Apple's penchant disregard for backwards compatibility and love to overcharge for storage and you really don't get a great recipe for gaming.
I think the key to their strategy is the line "more fragmented set of device stores/platform is better for us."
Nadella is acknowledging that being an app means the platform hosting the app has a lot of leverage. Apple could potentially prevent Microsoft from releasing an update on any of the apps they publish on the App Store. Apple and Google essentially play a gatekeeping role between many Microsoft Users and Microsoft itself. This is big for Microsoft because they have a huge install base on Android/iPhone/iPad, and have some exposure to macOS. Teams without iPhone won't work. This is a topic Microsoft is specifically sensitive too because of it's history.
Nadella is saying it's worth investing in less popular devices in hopes that they become a bigger competition again iPhone and Android. In fact, Nadella is hoping Meta takes a small but meaningful portion of the market.
Satya says that the more different competing platforms exist, the better it is for MS and their cloud services ie MS services will be eventually be available on all those platforms like Meta’s Quest charging subscription fees
Imo it’s inline with Satya’s Microsoft Everywhere strategy. Office and Xbox are everywhere now with the cloud
I think it's being posted in light of the USG's pending antitrust lawsuit against Google[1].
(However, that case concerns digital advertising, and this document seems to have been produced by discovery in a different case. So I'm not sure if it's relevant beyond the general theme of "Google considers other companies competitors.")
The significance I saw was Microsoft trying to project being the good guy for upcoming regulations of digital marketplaces. I thought they had a strategy to separate themselves from Apple and Google, and this confirms that. They keep getting the game console stores exempted from consideration.
