Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Microsoft Reportedly Facing Off Over SkyDrive In-App Subscription Revenues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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'
Are you sure about "liar" cos Oxford dictionary describes it differently, maybe you meant "Not being a full" or "Refusing to give big part of your income"?
That is not a rocket science, we can do some math here, 30% out of 100% and
how much you think Microsoft spends to deliver that service, maintaining servers and customer services? I won't be surprised if they spent not less than 40% (out of 100) 100-30(Apple)-40(spendings)=30% so? Microsoft earning 30%, Also Apple taking 30%.
Other companies "abiding" because they are not in that position to stand thair ground and say that is not right.
You don't have to be agree with me (but truth is never change)
Wha.. what?
Let's break this down for you:
Microsoft: Hi guys, we want to update the app with this feature.
Apple: We won't allow you to do that.
* Microsoft does not upload an update before this is resolved *
Do you understand this now?
Yes, they should. Oh wait, they've already done that:
Does that include the sign-up *link* referenced later (and quoted in my post)? If not, then this is exactly the same as what has happened with several other services in the past, and will be resolved in the same ways (30% cut, or no link from the app).
Nothing mysterious about it. It's a well-established pattern at this point.
Because of the massive amount of iOS users. Not because the App Store is so wonderfully designed. And you do realize there's hundreds of thousands of apps in the App Store, while the AppStore itself is just one big app?
Do you think that all the Microsoft retailers, resellers and partners actually sell their products for them without being paid? I believe that resellers of Microsoft online services get something like a 15% commission and they get a lot of support from Microsoft and do a lot less than Apple do.
Whilst 30% is pretty much standard for retail margin, plus you can argue it's actually a better deal as there is no wholesaler / distributor sat in the middle taking a decent margin as well. I used to run a record shop and can say for a fact that 10 years ago a record label would have got no more than 50% of the selling price, which makes the 70% Apple give them look pretty good.
We've been doing it since the dawn of the internet, and we're doing it now since most of the bigger parties have opted out of Apple's IAP set up. No one's died yet.
Plus I doubt someone would call up Apple because Netflix or Dropbox quit working. People aren't complete idiots. They'll know who to contact.
Billions a year? Pure hyperbole. There are sites out there that have been hosting free downloads for about forever now. They advertise, sure. Some of them even have subscription fees to cover costs. One thing's for sure, though. It's not costing them billions.
Just look at Steam. They offer up files that are multiple times larger than anything offered on the app store. You pay them once, you can download a 16GB worth of game again and again and again. A 30 meg download is piddly BS in comparison, and probably costs Apple roughly 1/1000 of a cent to host. Hell, Steam even offers up free downloads for MMOs without charging the company a cut of their subscription fees. All they do there is take a payment to use the Steam API, much like Apple does with their developer license. Despite this, Valve is doing pretty well for itself.
If Apple were to nix the charge on subscription services tomorrow, it wouldn't make even the singlest tiniest dent to their bottom line. iTunes and the app store get tons of money elsewhere. The only difference it'd make is that Netflix, Dropbox, and the rest might start using IAPs again, and make it more convenient on us.
Cuz really, these companies are running expensive to run services. Think it's costly for Apple to host all those 30 meg apps? Try being Dropbox, getting hammered with uploads and downloads of gigs worth of large files by millions of people again and again and again. You think Apple deserves 30% of their subscription fees for their hosting their little 30 meg app, yet have no problem with Dropbox giving away 1/3rd of their gross just to be able to post a subscription link through the app. Your opinion isn't balancing out here.
Last edited:
Here's how Apple should fix this issue:
1. Subscription based models where only the billing is done by Apple, should be reduced, ie 10-15% instead of 30%. Since SkyDrive, Dropbox, etc are services that are hosted on their respected servers and not Apple's servers, there's no need to charge such a high percentage. They are becoming like Visa/Mastercard with their interest rates in this regard.
2. Subscription based models where billing and push notifications are done by Apple, should be at a more modest amount, lets say 15-20%.
3. For in-app purchases that require content downloaded from Apple's servers, push notifications, etc, it should remain 30%.
1. Subscription based models where only the billing is done by Apple, should be reduced, ie 10-15% instead of 30%. Since SkyDrive, Dropbox, etc are services that are hosted on their respected servers and not Apple's servers, there's no need to charge such a high percentage. They are becoming like Visa/Mastercard with their interest rates in this regard.
2. Subscription based models where billing and push notifications are done by Apple, should be at a more modest amount, lets say 15-20%.
3. For in-app purchases that require content downloaded from Apple's servers, push notifications, etc, it should remain 30%.
I'm getting it. Skydrive is already on the App Store. Microsoft already agreed to the deal. Now they want something outside that deal.
And there is a big difference between offering non-negotiable terms to enter into a business relationship and "forcing" people to do something.
Nope. Payments outside the App Store have always been allowed as long as they aren't promoted within the app and IAP is implemented as an option.
Again, there is nothing undeserved about a referral fee or commission. It is a common business arrangement.
And within a movie theatre, that's not an option. And in Disney World, that's not an option. And within WalMart, that's not an option. And within a mall, that's not an option.
This isn't a unique business arrangement.
I'm getting it. Here's what the report said:
"It is unclear why Apple would have refused such an offer..." You seem to have made some additional assumptions.
But I was discussing the related topic of Apple requiring IAP for subscriptions in general.
As I said before, I would do the same thing. If a service provider wanted me to include a free product in my store that promoted their service without giving me a cut, I would refuse.
That's just crap. Apple literally conducts the transaction. The accept the payment, process the transaction, and authenticate the subscriber.
Again, that's just FUD. Here's the real answer. If a browser did that, people would use a different browser. That's the advantage of building the internet on standards.
Because there is no other choice. If you want to access iOS users you must go through Apple, unless customers can access your product through safari.
Then MS managers screwed up. They shouldn't have broken the rule. They can don't release the app, or they can just do it like DropBox which has bigger share than them.
The marketplace keeps changing. 30% may be too high or too low depending on what the app developers and Apple do together. But it's a set price from years ago.
Never know all the details about this kind of stuff. Reminds me of MS XBOX live DLC policy where Mark Rein of Epic games was pissed because MS required Epic to charge for DLC to keep everything even for all devs. Rein wanted it to be free. Believe it was for Gears of War 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
You might want to re-read the comment to which you were responding. It isn't asserting authority over the facts, but rather pointing out that the MacRumors article is worded in such a way as to avoid stating actual facts, instead relying on the reader to assume something that may or may not be accurate.
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.
... along with the pirates, and other billing issues. Plus hacker attempts on your servers every week.
I'm sure Microsoft and other developers would gladly take those responsibilities on, like they are accustomed to anyway.
Wha.. what?
Let's break this down for you:
Microsoft: Hi guys, we want to update the app with this feature.
Apple: We won't allow you to do that.
* Microsoft does not upload an update before this is resolved *
Do you understand this now?
That is not what has happened. The idea of it is ridiculous. Its just bad writing on the part of the article author. See my other posts on the topic.
Only by a huge stretch of logic could you consider what Apple does as a referral or commission fee. Do you believe that because a developer puts a link to their website from inside their app that was initially hosted by Apple that they're indirectly advertising for them?
BaldiMac said:
I think of things the old way. Someone made an app for Windows and Mac, they were offering up their software for the platform without any direct ties to MS or Apple themselves. With this new setup, Apple has made making an app for an iDevice a part of a "business relationship". Apple knows they have a popular platform, and if 3rd parties want to take advantage of that, they have to give up 1/3rd of their operating costs to do so.
It'd be fair, if it were actually costing Apple anything at all to run these subscription services. Which it doesn't. I've already listed the some of the things Netflix is required to pay to run their business. How is Apple directly involved in that? By giving them a slot on their popular platform? Is it costing Apple anything for me to have the app sitting on my springboard doing absolutely nothing? Why do they deserve 30% of Netflix's cut?
If I buy a Vacuum cleaner from Sears, and buy vac bags from an online company, does the online company have to give Sears a cut because they made the initial purchase available to me?
If I subscribe to HBO, do they have to pay Samsung 30% of their profits because the nice, big TV I got from them made me more likely to subscribe in the first place?
If I get a cuisinart...
...you get the point. There's absolutely no reason for Apple to take a cut from subscription fees that could otherwise be handled, directed, and processed elsewhere. No reason to force companies to deal directly with Apple because their app is on their platform once it's on my iPad and not waiting for me in the app store.
Last edited:
Because one of them is trying to side-step a prior agreement. I know the article claims it's all mysterious as to why this might be happening, even as it actually explains the reasons in black and white, but that shouldn't mean you can't find the explanation for yourself.
We are working off of assumptions here since proper journalism is severely lacking here.
We are both making assumptions as to what was submitted.
I can only assume that if MS offered to remove the Sub function, they should have no issue getting it approved since it's technically the same thing as DropBox.
The sign up link people are talking about is in the SDK for third party app devs wanting to link into SKyDrive. It's not present in the (current) SkyDrive app.
I can only assume MS is removing it from the SkyDrive app to comply with Apple's rules.
If after removing the sub links Apple still rejects it, we can only assume Apple is being obtuse.