I agree... I think there's confusion on people's opinion of what 'fairness is' and 'how business works' between two parties.
.
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
I agree... I think there's confusion on people's opinion of what 'fairness is' and 'how business works' between two parties.
.
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.
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'.
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
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.
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.
That, I think is the point. They have only offered, not actually done it. So of course, by the App Store rules, it isn't getting approved.
Personally, the article leaves way too much to speculation imho.
Oletros
macrumors 603
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
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
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".
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.
Oletros
macrumors 603
Thanks for agree with me. Microsoft CAN'T use its payment system because Apple rules don't allow it.
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.
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.
VulchR
macrumors 68040
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.
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
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.
----------
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.
good point.
My guess is that MS is benefiting by getting access to the vast iOS user base and not just the billing service.
.
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
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Of course they have a choice. Don't sell through the App Store.
Yep. It's called negotiating from a position of strength.
That's just FUD. According to Apple, the App Store runs a bit over break even.
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.
Not a fact. A naive opinion.
I didn't agree with you. You left out important qualifications in your statement. As written, your statement was wrong.
gotluck
macrumors 603
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.
peterdevries
macrumors 68040
Microsoft uses Apple's platform to sell services. Apple is entitled to a share of the proceedings
Renzatic
Suspended
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...