Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

paul4339

macrumors 65816
Sep 14, 2009
1,447
731
Why do you keep asking what they "deserve"? ....

Apple charges what they want. Developers have a choice as to whether to accept Apple's terms. That's how business works in a free market.

I agree... I think there's confusion on people's opinion of what 'fairness is' and 'how business works' between two parties.

.
 

Nickerbocker

macrumors 6502
Apr 4, 2012
273
135
I guess as long as the iTunes billing service is being used it's 30/70 split, otherwise if MS wants 100%, they'd have to use their own billing service.

.

Exactly. Apple is handling billing, handling the customer data, and handling the responsibility of keeping that data secure. Why should being on iOS matter? Their % cut comes from the billing services.
 

tbrinkma

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2006
1,651
93
except the person can always use someone else's turf next door to sell goodies

there is no choice here, there is only one 'turf'

No, there's plenty of 'turf' out there. But the only way you'll get access to the people 'shopping' on Apple's 'turf' is to *sell* on their 'turf'.
 

viacavour

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2012
636
0
However, we're only talking about an app here.

An app is just the delivery mechanism. MS will still need to stick with the rules regardless of how they hope it can be done their ways. Just like DropBox and others who are leading the market now.

Apple recently expanded iTunes into markets that XBL are not in. So there is value add there too.

In the future, Google will impose their own store policies more strictly. MS will need to figure out a way to handle this issue anyway, but breaking the rule is a silly start. They are paying for the problem now.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
You got the cut because you yourself got a promotion for stocking an item that people wanted, and got more customers in the door. See, a mutually beneficial agreement. The subscription costs you nothing, and you didn't contribute to it. And you don't deserve a cut.

I don't think you read what I wrote. How did I get a cut of "free"?

Again, service providers willingly came to me asking me to sell their services in exchange for a commission. Often a big percentage. I hardly ever even needed to negotiate. It costed me nothing other than a few minutes and the transaction fees. I didn't even put up any advertising for 90% of them.
 

tbrinkma

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2006
1,651
93
Jeez, we know they submitted an update. It included the subs button and the important bugfix. It got rejected. We know that, and we know why it got rejected - the subs button. Its a clear breach of the rules.

What all the articles are now fumbling is the issue of whether MS RESUBMITTED the app with the subs button removed. The article writers wish us to believe yes, and that Apple scandalously rejected it, but they're not saying it. All they have said is that MS have offered to remove the button. Offered.

The most sensible interpretation is that MS are trying to get the original update approved, despite the subs button, because it fixes the bug. They are offering to remove the subs button on the next update in the hope that appeases Apple. It has not. Apple have refused to pass the update, and require MS to resubmit it with the subs button removed.

Yes, it's a bit of reading between the lines, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than what the article writers are trying to coax us towards believing.

Wait and see. MS will resubmit within a day or two. Crisis over.

Yep. This. Reading comprehension, people.
 

Judas1

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
794
42
I agree... I think there's confusion on people's opinion of what fairness is and how business works between two parties.

.
They're not confused. Businesses can deal with each other however they like. But when it affects the consumers (we want the ability to subscribe built into the app), then we should be able to complain about fairness on a web forum. Where else if not here.
 

viacavour

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2012
636
0
That's a very rough guesstimation pulled completely out of my ass without absolutely nothing to back it up. I just thought it sounded nice. :p

...but it doesn't change the fact that there are companies that give away far, far more and ask for far, far less in comparison to what Apple is demanding without going under. Dropbox and Netflix probably use up at least as much as Apple on bandwidth per month and charge considerably less for their services.

One month of Netflix is $8. I can watch 10 movies during that month. That's about the cost of one or two rentals on iTunes, delivered to me at about the same quality. I pay considerably more for Apple's service. I've had months where I've thrown $40-$50 at them, and only downloaded roughly 3GB of data. Netflix? I eat up that much data watching an hours worth of movie.

...so if giving away even a single app for free nets Apple a huge loss despite making more money elsewhere while using less bandwidth overall, why hasn't Netflix gone under?

It is not an estimate if you pull the number out of your ass. You don't know 30% is too much or too little costwise anyway. And value has increased since Apple launched the service. There are more countries and users to serve today. It is more secure. And there are more value adds the devs can do today.

For your NetFlix example, Apple work closely with NetFlix to enable it on iOS when NetFlix is small. They continue to work very closely for the few years my friend is there. Apple has a very good media team. Maximize your relationship with Apple is the way to go. But you have to be good first.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Why do you keep asking what they "deserve"? Do you participate in some sort of economy where prices are base on what some random third-party deems fair?

Apple charges what they want. Developers have a choice as to whether to accept Apple's terms. That's how business works in a free market.

Apple has rigged the game so third parties have no other choice.

"You want your app on our platform? You run a subscription service? Well, guess what? We're slowly ebbing away at your ability to charge your customers directly. You have to...HAVE TO...go through us, and we'll take one-third of what you make.

What's it costing us? Practically nothing. What's it costing you? 30% flat rate. Don't call it extortion. Call it an agreement between two individuals. We've got a popular platform you want to take advantage of, so we're going to take advantage of you".

That's a distinction without a point. Are we supposed to pretend that there is some sort of law that says Apple must not consider services offered by the app in deciding whether or not to carry it?

Why should they consider anything they're not directly involved with? As long as it doesn't directly harm the platform or isn't illegal in some way, Apple has no business charging Microsoft, or Dropbox, or Netflix to run their service on Apple's platform. Nothing beyond the cost of hosting and advertising the app itself.

That is the simple, most basic fact of all this.
 

Judas1

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
794
42
I don't think you read what I wrote. How did I get a cut of "free"?

Again, service providers willingly came to me asking me to sell their services in exchange for a commission. Often a big percentage. I hardly ever even needed to negotiate. It costed me nothing other than a few minutes and the transaction fees. I didn't even put up any advertising for 90% of them.

See, they didn't come to you begging. They have their own store. They would like to sell it at their store but can't. And again even with your fee, it was mutually beneficial. That's the key word. Here, it is not mutually beneficial. They have their own infrastructure, payment system, ways of promotion, and they don't need apple's store, but they have no choice.
 

mshepherd

macrumors regular
Feb 29, 2004
152
9
Both Dropbox and google drive sell additional storage as in app purchase. It is not a reoccurring charge, just a one time fee for more storage for a year. Seems to make sense.
 

paul4339

macrumors 65816
Sep 14, 2009
1,447
731
They're not confused. Businesses can deal with each other however they like. But when it affects the consumers (we want the ability to subscribe built into the app), then we should be able to complain about fairness on a web forum. Where else if not here.


you are absolutely correct, we are allowed to complain.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,358
14,217
Scotland
Can't be bothered to read 11 pages of responses, so apologies if this has been said before. Why doesn't MS simply charge their usual fee + 30%? It won't bother most Apple iOS users.....

I just hope that Apple and MS won't throw their toys out of their pram and endanger the rumored Office for iOS app.
 
Last edited:

gotluck

macrumors 603
Dec 8, 2011
5,712
1,204
East Central Florida
No, there's plenty of 'turf' out there. But the only way you'll get access to the people 'shopping' on Apple's 'turf' is to *sell* on their 'turf'.

I hope you own shares in Apple, because your perspective is only good for an investor.

Why users would fight for system that enables only one store to install applications is simply beyond my comprehension. I see this one OS, one Store garbage is gaining traction in multiple camps, but the old ways of "I can install whatever software I want, from wherever I want.." are BETTER for the user. Use the store if you want, go directly to the developer if you want.

----------

In the future, Google will impose their own store policies more strictly. MS will need to figure out a way to handle this issue anyway, but breaking the rule is a silly start. They are paying for the problem now.

I don't think google will ever remove the checkbox in android that allows users to install apps from 3rd party sources. Developers will always be able to avoid Google Play, I'd bet on it. This also allows useful apps adhering to GNU GPL (programs like VLC) to be released.
 

paul4339

macrumors 65816
Sep 14, 2009
1,447
731
... Why doesn't MS simply charge their usual fee + 30%? It won't bother most Apple iOS users.....
...

good point.

My guess is that MS is benefiting by getting access to the vast iOS user base and not just the billing service.

.
 

viacavour

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2012
636
0
I hope you own shares in Apple, because your perspective is only good for an investor.

Why users would fight for system that enables only one store to install applications is simply beyond my comprehension. I see this one OS, one Store garbage is gaining traction in multiple camps, but the old ways of "I can install whatever software I want, from wherever I want.." is BETTER for the user. Use the store if you want, go directly to the developer if you want.

----------



I don't think google will ever remove the checkbox in android that allows users to install apps from 3rd party sources. Developers will always be able to avoid Google Play, I'd bet on it.

I don't think the Windows way is better. I spent 6 hours helping 3 people to get rid of malware but failed. The developers have gotten so good that they have managed to dodge all the standard tools. You have to download specialized tool to hit them, but the tools themselves are dodgy too.

One store is easier to manage. And easier to change should Apple wants to evolve the system in the future.


As for other installation mechanism... Welp, I don't think MS is after those users. For practical purposes, GooglePlay will target most of the users. That's where MS want to play too. It is also an entry point for malware. With a common experience and entry point, the developers can focus on other things.
 

donrsd

macrumors 6502
Dec 16, 2011
269
1
South Florida
Thank you, the people on this forum who are bashing Apple about the 30% are nothing more than armchair CEO's.

Firstly, in app purchases allow the 3rd parties to make money by way of using Apple's vehicle. So for example, any developer could install a free app in the App Store and then make money only through in-app sales. That way they could escape paying Apple anything but then they get to use Apple's vehicle to do it. That's the stupid mentality of some these armchair CEO's here. That's basically stealing.

Secondly, Microsoft has more money than Apple so I find it hilarious that these armchair CEO's are siding with MS's tactics of making money through Apple without paying one red cent to Apple.
Truth, MS can't make any real money from their own dead Windows Phone 7/8 system so they try and make money through Apple underhandedly and the armchair CEO's here support it. Microsoft has never been an angel and their Steve Ballmer will never have a halo over his head.

The armchair CEO's here aren't Apple enthusiasts, they are on the team of "I hate Apple and Always Will".

Fantastic post!!!
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Apple has rigged the game so third parties have no other choice.

Of course they have a choice. Don't sell through the App Store.

"You want your app on our platform? You run a subscription service? Well, guess what? We're slowly ebbing away at your ability to charge your customers directly. You have to...HAVE TO...go through us, and we'll take one-third of what you make.

Yep. It's called negotiating from a position of strength.

What's it costing us? Practically nothing. What's it costing you? 30% flat rate. Don't call it extortion. Call it an agreement between two individuals. We've got a popular platform you want to take advantage of, so we're going to take advantage of you".

That's just FUD. According to Apple, the App Store runs a bit over break even.

Why should they consider anything they're not directly involved with? As long as it doesn't directly harm the platform or isn't illegal in some way, Apple has no business charging Microsoft, or Dropbox, or Netflix to run their service on Apple's platform. Nothing beyond the cost of hosting and advertising the app itself.

Because they need to support the App Store platform. Paid apps and subscription support all the free ones.

And as someone pointed out earlier, if Apple were not going to take a cut for subscriptions, why wouldn't every app move to a subscription model? Leaving Apple no money to support the App Store platform.

"This app requires a one day subscription for the same amount that it used to cost, but continues to function normally after the subscription expires."

And then there's the issue of security. By standardizing the payment method within the App Store and IAPs, Apple has increased the security of the iOS platform tremendously.

That is the simple, most basic fact of all this.

Not a fact. A naive opinion.

Thanks for agree with me. Microsoft CAN'T use its payment system because Apple rules don't allow it.

I didn't agree with you. You left out important qualifications in your statement. As written, your statement was wrong.
 

gotluck

macrumors 603
Dec 8, 2011
5,712
1,204
East Central Florida
I don't think the Windows way is better. I spent 6 hours helping 3 people to get rid of malware but failed. The developers have gotten so good that they have managed to dodge all the standard tools. You have to download specialized tool to hit them, but the tools themselves are dodgy too.

One store is easier to manage. And easier to change should Apple wants to evolve the system in the future.

So give me the checkbox and keep using the store yourself.

Giving people the option doesn't mean everyone has to take it.

Don't restrict my freedom because someone else can't handle it.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
For your NetFlix example, Apple work closely with NetFlix to enable it on iOS when NetFlix is small. They continue to work very closely for the few years my friend is there. Apple has a very good media team. Maximize your relationship with Apple is the way to go. But you have to be good first.

Netflix accounts for 1/3rd of peak data usage in the United States, and it's not even the iDevices that's the most popular platform it's run on. Weirdly enough, it's the consoles. The Wii, the PS3, and the Xbox. I guess because they're directly connected to a TV.

So with that in mind, why should they pay 1/3rd of their gross to Apple? They don't have to do it elsewhere. They just offer up the app. Sony and Nintendo aren't complaining about the cost of hosting it, so why should Apple, who's already making roughly 30,000x the amount of money off their platforms than those two aforementioned companies combined.

It's plain and simply Apple being greedy. They're not covering their ass, not making up lost costs elsewhere. They're just making more money at the expense of anyone who offers a paid subscription service.

There is no justifying it. Whatsoever. All it will lead to is iOS users having to pay more for the exact same service people can get elsewhere. Do we really want that? We already pay a premium on the hardware...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.