Microsoft To Sell Xbox Games Directly Through Android App

Microsoft will offer direct game purchases through its Xbox app for Android starting November, following a U.S. court ruling against Google's app store monopoly. The move allows Microsoft to circumvent Google's revenue cut on in-app purchases and signals renewed focus on mobile gaming, bolstered by its recent $75.4 billion Activision Blizzard acquisition.

Do Apple next

[transporter_ii]

I'm a little perplexed by this. I used Amazon's app store many years ago. I see it's still a thing: https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/... [amazon.com]

Find something even remotely close to the Amazon app store for an iOS device. Or, the ability to even sideload apps on an iOS device. OK, I know that is supposed to be in the works, but I've been hearing about it for a while now. I still haven't seen it actually working yet.

Re:

[Merk42]

Because Apple isn't a Monopoly. So they can do whatever they want. Surely being a 3 Trillion Dollar Company means they have absolutely no influence in other markets.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

From what I can tell from the latest estimates [counterpointresearch.com], Apple is 2nd (16%) in worldwide smartphone market share behind Samsung (19%) and just ahead of Xiaomi (15%) when it comes to phone manufacturers. When it comes to OS worldwide market share [statcounter.com], Android is dominant at 72% with iOS holding 27%. In the US [counterpointresearch.com], Apple has 52% compared to Samsung's 24%. iOS [statcounter.com] is 57% to Android's 42%.

Realistically, one could argue that Android and Apple hold duopolies in OS. In the US, Apple is more dominant in the US than worldwide.

Re:

[transporter_ii]

Apple certainly has a monopoly over it's app store. And the monopoly company is much more open with it's app store.

I stopped using Amazon's app store because the apps didn't get updated as frequently as they did on the Play store. At least it was an option. I've never used it, but it looks like Samsung has an app store, too.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Lowe's certainly has a monopoly over Lowe's. And Home Depot certainly has a monopoly over Home Depot.

Re: Do Apple next

[drinkypoo]

Hardware store products are interoperable, not deliberately non-interoperable like apple products.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Exactly what Apple product is non-interoperable? The last time I checked, you can integrate a MacOS computer with a Windows Active Directory domain. You can call an Android phone using an iOS device. If you have a friend with an Android device, you can try it yourself. Just type their number into the keypad and you will be able to talk to them.

The only non-interoperability that I'm aware of is that Apple isn't willing to let other manufacturers use the iMessage protocols. But other manufacturers ha

Re:

[unrtst]

Not that I agree with the origin of this thread, but...

Exactly what Apple product is non-interoperable?

Lightening connector for charging and data?
Airdrop?
Apple's Find My?
AirTag?
iMessage?
FaceTime?
MeMoji?
Siri?
Safari?
AirPods (limited functionality)?
macOS (limited to Apple hardware)?
Apple Credit Card / Wallet?
various iCloud stuff/features?
Apple HomePod (can't set up nor control from Android/others)?

I don't know if that's what GP meant, but that seems like it's core to their MO.
Look at any of those above and consider the other major competitors. In every case

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Apple fully publishes the lighting connector specifications and anybody is welcome to use them! That nobody choose to use lighting isn't really something you can lay at Apple's feet. (Well maybe the $4 royalty is a little bit high but it's still fully interoperable)

Safari uses WebKit which Apple made available under a BSD-2 clause. Anybody can use it. Both Edge and Chrome were WebKit browsers at one point. I don't know the current status.

There is an AirTag app for Android

Many items on your list

Re:

[unrtst]

Don't shoot the messenger; You asked for the list :-)

Hardware store products are interoperable, not deliberately non-interoperable like apple products.

Exactly what Apple product is non-interoperable?

... the list I provided ...

Apple fully publishes the lighting connector specifications and anybody is welcome to use them! That nobody choose to use lighting isn't really something you can lay at Apple's feet. (Well maybe the $4 royalty is a little bit high but it's still fully interoperable)

And you don't think their choice of phone connector was and is purposefully non-interoperable? Lightening is just the latest, which did improve their situation, and their current models FINALLY use a USB-C connector. IMO, the fact that they charge a royalty on lightening is just further proof that the exclusion is deliberate.

There is an AirTag app for Android

Are you being facetious? I can't find any evidence of any apps for Android that allow you to track your AirTags - threads on Reddit

Re:

[Ed Tice]

That's the sort of "first" Apple often claims; The sort of first where you just disregard the actual pioneers and firsts. And I'll admit, they're good at this, but that doesn't grant them a special "we did it first" pass. Speaking of, what does doing something first have to do with whether or not said product is deliberately non-interoperable?

Whoever goes first doesn't have anything with which to interoperate! The way the market usually works is that somebody goes first and builds up a network effect. Competitors who want to enter the market find it difficult to do so because the organization that lead the way has no obligation to make it easy for competitors to jump in. Therefore, the followers get together and define a "standard" that they all agree on using. If you add up the some of competitor 2...n, they have enough market share to get

Re:

[unrtst]

Whoever goes first doesn't have anything with which to interoperate! The way the market usually works is that somebody goes first and builds up a network effect. ...

I get this, but those goalposts don't seem to be in the same place. Apple didn't get there first. It could be argued that they were the first to have said thing be widely adopted (IE: where the goalpost ends up), but if they weren't actually first, then there WERE existing competitors to interoperate with.

Pick any one of those things and it's the same story. Ex. FaceTime - as if there wasn't video calling before, and some well established players, and an established precedent of that interface (the dialer/c

Re:

[Ed Tice]

You are correct that the Android AirTag app doesn't do very much. And you can't find AirTags using the web site. Although you can find your Apple Devices, so that does seem like it's artificially limited for no reason. Thanks, I learned something new today.

If there's already a product in the market but it isn't successful, that's a good sign that there is market potential but that the existing products are deficient. Not being interoperable with those failed ideas is a net benefit. Go back to October

Re:

[unrtst]

These statements are a lot different from where this started. Eg. "Exactly what Apple product is non-interoperable? ... The only non-interoperability that I'm aware of is that Apple isn't willing to let other manufacturers use the iMessage protocols."

There are plenty of Apple products and features that are non-interoperable. Some may be justifiable, (strong/weak) excuses can be made for some, but they certainly exist.

... why products like the Nomad weren't successful ...

I think that depends on how and WHEN you judge success. I think it was successful for a ti

Re: Do Apple next

[drinkypoo]

Neither Google nor apple has a monopoly on phones.

Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores, Google does not have a monopoly on Android app stores.

Your statement makes no sense.

Re:

[ihavesaxwithcollies]

Google does not have a monopoly on Android app stores.

Can you name another app store that comes stock on android?

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Can you name another app store that comes stock on android?

Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that Google is free of antitrust, I'm saying they don't have a monopoly. Some devices come with other app stores, and Google does nothing to prevent that as far as I know. And in Android 12 they made it so that those other app stores can do unattended upgrades, so they do the same stuff.

I'd like to see Android at least allow root on all devices, if not also require unlockable bootloaders, but I'd also like a million dollars and a handy.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

The thing is, Apple's store is for its phones. And Apple has not made their OS available on other phones, nor claimed it would work on other phones.

If you want an iOS phone, you have to buy Apple, because Apple is the only one that makes them and does not provide it for other devices.

Google, on the other hand, made Android open and available to other platforms. However, if you wanted the Google apps, you had to sign a very restrictive agreement that restricted what you can put on your phone - the Google app

Re:

[unrtst]

The thing is, Apple's store is for its phones. And Apple has not made their OS available on other phones, nor claimed it would work on other phones.

The thing is, this argument can easily be applied equally to Google, Android, and bundle of apps that make up the google play store support. See:
"The thing is, Google Services Framework is for its certified phones. And Google has not made their framework available on all other phones, nor claimed it would work on noncertified phones."

Google, on the other hand, made Android open and available to other platforms. However, if you wanted the Google apps, you had to sign a very restrictive agreement that restricted what you can put on your phone...

Exactly. Rather than not allow one iota of its system to be used by others (as in Apple not allowing any 3rd parties to use iOS on their own hardware), they allow ANYONE to use

Re: Do Apple next

[ToasterMonkey]

You already can buy PlayStation games directly in the PS App on iPhone, you have been able for quite a while. At least since PS5 came out if not longer. Super convenient, buy a game and tell your console to download it before you get home from work.

/o\ | \o/

[easyTree]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/0... [cnbc.com]

--
According to the filing, starting in November, for three years, Google will not be able to:

Pay companies to launch apps exclusively or first on Google Play
Pay companies so they do not compete with Google Play
Pay companies to preinstall Google Play on new devices
Require app makers to use Google Play Billing, or prohibit app makers from telling their users about cheaper online goods on their website (Google Play takes between 15% and 30% of i

Re:

[unrtst]

(WTF:) Google will also have to permit competing Android app stores to access Google Play’s catalog of apps

I *hope* that only means they have to list the competing app stores in the play store so they can install those stores, rather than some of the convoluted wording for it that I've seen in some of the previous case news (which made it sounds like they had to host the entire stores within their app store, rather than hosting an app that installs a competing store).

Require app makers to use Google Play Billing, or prohibit app makers from telling their users about cheaper online goods on their website (Google Play takes between 15% and 30% of in-app purchases as a fee from large app makers)

There was one aspect of their previous behavior that made sense to me, and I hope that's still the case in the fine print. That being, if an app is

What does this mean for Audible?

[imcdona]

Audible removed the ability to purchase books from the Android app several years ago due to the Google tax. With this ruling in place, I wonder if that functionality will be restored.