Apple and Microsoft Reportedly Facing Off Over SkyDrive In-App Subscription Revenues

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by gotluck

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.

Once some iOS devices are infiltrated, the cost has already been incurred. Other locked down devices may become vulnerable too via device-to-device mechanisms.

We probably have to wait for MacOSX to fight malware successfully before iOS picks up the good mechanisms. It seems pretty close now but we shall see.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Judas1

See, they didn't come to you begging.

Microsoft isn't begging.

They have their own store.

Most of them did not.

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.

Evidently, the developers that accept Apple's terms believe it to be.

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.

Of course they have a choice. If the don't consider the App Store terms to be beneficial, don't sell through the App Store. It's a very straightforward choice.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

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...

That's what you speculate. NetFlix may think otherwise. They are in bed together as far as I can see (or rather my friend can see :-p). What do we know ? Perhaps they want to fend off Google ?

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by viacavour

Once some iOS devices are infiltrated, the cost has already been incurred. Other locked down devices may become vulnerable too via device-to-device mechanisms.

We probably have to wait for MacOSX to fight malware successfully before iOS picks up the good mechanisms. It seems pretty close now but we shall see.

This is alot to be paranoid about considering there have been no cases of viruses or contagious malware in jailbroken iOS since its inception.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by gotluck

This is alot to be paranoid about considering there have been no cases of viruses or contagious malware in jailbroken iOS since its inception.

You know malware. The Windows folks probably thought the same until the damage became irreversible.

Those 3 people I helped weren't even friends. They were strangers who came to me in the library or coffee shop because I have a powerful Windows laptop. They saw my gears and concluded that I could help them. But sadly, my advices was to reinstall in all 3.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Of course they have a choice. If the don't consider the App Store terms to be beneficial, don't sell through the App Store. It's a very straightforward choice.

Yea the choice is to play Apple's game or abandon their customers that use iOS. What a choice!

[WiiDSmoker]

Originally Posted by paul4339

good point.

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

.

Doesn't Apple force the price to be the same everywhere; even if outside the App?

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by viacavour

You know malware. The Windows folks probably thought the same until the damage became irreversible.

I've never had irreversible damage done to any of my Windows computers 95- 7.

The people you helped need the app store model, obviously.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Baldimac

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

It might run only a slight profit, but it's also the one direct reason why the iDevices are as popular as they are. One of the major reasons why I stick with Apple is their excellent 3rd party support compared to the other companies on the mobile scene.

You can't say Apple is doing anything but well for themselves at the moment, and the vast majority of that 30% cut off sub fees is pure profit on their part, but extra baggage on those offering it. They're paying more to get a service to us.

To me, it's a very Microsoftian move. Yes, it's Apple's right to charge what they want, but it's not right. Just because they can doesn't mean they should, because it's only making it even more expensive for these companies to do business. An expense that we'll end up eventually paying for.

I could stomach it a little more if it were less. I mean it's nearly all pure profit on Apple's part. 5% might be a little easier to take. Maybe even 10%. But 30%? For a service they're not paying a dime to run themselves beyond forcing people to use their payment system? How can you defend this?

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by gotluck

I've never had irreversible damage done to any of my Windows computers 95- 7.

The later ones are more potent.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by gotluck

Yea the choice is to play Apple's game or abandon their customers that use iOS. What a choice!

Or use the web. Or use Cydia.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

It might run only a slight profit, but it's also the one direct reason why the iDevices are as popular as they are. One of the major reasons why I stick with Apple is their excellent 3rd party support compared to the other companies on the mobile scene.

You can't say Apple is doing anything but well for themselves at the moment, and the vast majority of that 30% cut off sub fees is pure profit on their part, but extra baggage on those offering it. They're paying more to get a service to us.

To me, it's a very Microsoftian move. Yes, it's Apple's right to charge what they want, but it's not right. Just because they can doesn't mean they should, because it's only making it even more expensive for these companies to do business. An expense that we'll end up eventually paying for.

I could stomach it a little more if it were less. I mean it's nearly all pure profit on Apple's part. 5% might be a little easier to take. Maybe even 10%. But 30%? For a service they're not paying a dime to run themselves beyond forcing people to use their payment system? How can you defend this?

Again, you don't know the numbers and yet jump to conclusion. >_<

They just expanded into 100 countries. Would have taken a hit. The developers should localize their apps to make full use of their 30 % contribution now.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Or use the web. Or use Cydia.

Tell that to anyone on iOS 6 (4s and newer). I'm sick of waiting for jailbreaks.

[paul4339]

Originally Posted by WiiDSmoker

Doesn't Apple force the price to be the same everywhere; even if outside the App?

I'm not sure,,, it wasn't that way with eBooks (I think???)... that is, I think, MS can charge more on iOS if it wants... good question.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

It might run only a slight profit, but it's also the one direct reason why the iDevices are as popular as they are. One of the major reasons why I stick with Apple is their excellent 3rd party support compared to the other companies on the mobile scene.

You can't say Apple is doing anything but well for themselves at the moment, and the vast majority of that 30% cut off sub fees is pure profit on their part, but extra baggage on those offering it. They're paying more to get a service to us.

To me, it's a very Microsoftian move. Yes, it's Apple's right to charge what they want, but it's not right. Just because they can doesn't mean they should, because it's only making it even more expensive for these companies to do business. An expense that we'll end up eventually paying for.

I could stomach it a little more if it were less. I mean it's nearly all pure profit on Apple's part. 5% might be a little easier to take. Maybe even 10%. But 30%? For a service they're not paying a dime to run themselves beyond forcing people to use their payment system?

You are just making stuff up here. As I said in the quote you responded to (and you accepted), Apple claims to run the App Store a bit over break even. That's a far cry from "the vast majority of that 30% cut off sub fees is pure profit."

And again, you seem to be stuck on what Apple "should" make. They set a price. The developers decide if they want to pay it. Free market.

How can you defend this?

Because I made money the same way.

And, apparently, almost all of this money is funneled back into supporting and improving the App Store.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by viacavour

That's what you speculate. NetFlix may think otherwise. They are in bed together as far as I can see (or rather my friend can see :-p). What do we know ? Perhaps they want to fend off Google ?

They ain't complaining about it because they don't use the IAP setup. :P

Yeah, they're working together to give us a good service, but I bet they get all angry when they start talking about that 30% cut. I bet people even start throwing stuff.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by WiiDSmoker

Doesn't Apple force the price to be the same everywhere; even if outside the App?

Yes. Netflix cannot add on 30% to the price of in-app subscriptions to cover the Apple 30%.

----------

Originally Posted by peterdevries

Microsoft uses Apple's platform to sell services. Apple is entitled to a share of the proceedings

Everyone has their different opinions.

[trekkie604]

So Google is giving Apple 30% of all in-app subscription upgrades to Google Drive?

[babyj]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I could stomach it a little more if it were less. I mean it's nearly all pure profit on Apple's part. 5% might be a little easier to take. Maybe even 10%. But 30%? For a service they're not paying a dime to run themselves beyond forcing people to use their payment system? How can you defend this?

Not paying a dime?

Who do you think pays for the hosting and bandwidth?
Who do you think pays for the card processing / gift card fees?
Who do you think pays for the customer support staff?
Who do you think pays for the staff that maintain the iTunes shop front?
Who do you think pays for the staff that perform the app approval process?

Claiming Apple charge 30% simply for payment processing is rubbish.

Apple have said the margin on iTunes is negligible and there is no reason to disbelieve this. Though I'm sure they pump a fortune in to marketing, advertisements and discount gift cards for example, though that benefits the developers as well.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by babyj

Not paying a dime?

Who do you think pays for the hosting and bandwidth?
Who do you think pays for the card processing / gift card fees?
Who do you think pays for the customer support staff?
Who do you think pays for the staff that maintain the iTunes shop front?
Who do you think pays for the staff that perform the app approval process?

Claiming Apple charge 30% simply for payment processing is rubbish.

He was talking about third-party services, such as SkyDrive. Not the apps.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

They ain't complaining about it because they don't use the IAP setup. :P

Yeah, they're working together to give us a good service, but I bet they get all angry when they start talking about that 30% cut. I bet people even start throwing stuff.

Again, your own speculation.

If you want to know how MS runs a service, look at Xbox Live. Developers have to pay even when they don't sell a thing. Patches cost 5 figures. You cannot release exclusive features on other platforms or they will stall your approval. And they include services that are free on other platforms in XBL paid subscription.

[paul4339]

Originally Posted by Stella

Yes. Netflix cannot add on 30% to the price of in-app subscriptions to cover the Apple 30%.

----------



Everyone has their different opinions.

thx... this is interesting, I guess it's a mechanism to prevent companies from leveraging the iOS platform then dragging the user back to their own billing service at a discount. I guess the way around that would to make the services offerings slightly different (??).

.

[Judas1]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Microsoft isn't begging.



Most of them did not.



Evidently, the developers that accept Apple's terms believe it to be.



Of course they have a choice. If the don't consider the App Store terms to be beneficial, don't sell through the App Store. It's a very straightforward choice.

What the App Store has that they want access to are consumers. Do you seriously believe apple owns iOS users? If not, then let us buy what we want from the stores that we want. Just like in the real world where there are numerous stores to shop from. And please stop saying they have a choice to either use the AppStore or not. That's not a choice. There are no other ways for them to sell ios apps to consumers. And vice versa, there's no other way for us to get these apps from them.

[rutledjw]

Originally Posted by skate71290

Microsoft acts the bigger man and Apple acts like a child

I'm not a fan of some (many?) actions taken by Apple recently - this one included. BUT - it IS a bit of irony that Microsoft is being treated in this manner after its behavior in the 90s. It was FAR from exemplary then!

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

You are just making stuff up here. As I said in the quote you responded to (and you accepted), Apple claims to run the App Store a bit over break even. That's a far cry from "the vast majority of that 30% cut off sub fees is pure profit."

Okay, then tell me what that 30% goes towards. Bandwidth cost for hosting the relatively minuscule app? We've already gone on about bandwidth. Apple could charge a buck for it and make that up and then some. Advertising cost? On their own service? That's more a bandwidth issue. Hosting a little picture on their store front doesn't cost them anything but. So...what?

I'll tell you what. It's attempt to make the app store even more profitable. Of that 30%, the vast majority would be pure pocket.

See, the reason why that 30% doesn't go anywhere is because none of the big subscription/store front services are using it. Amazon doesn't use it. Netflix doesn't use it. Microsoft obviously doesn't want to use it.

And again, you seem to be stuck on what Apple "should" make. They set a price. The developers decide if they want to pay it. Free market.

Free market on the whole, the iDevice ecosystem is anything but. I have no choice there. And yes, I could buy something else. But why should I? Hell, why should developers have to be forced into Apple's payment system?

I can understand making profit due to something. But making profit at the expense of something? Not so much. The latter is what this whole situation feels like to me. Apple is acting more as an obstruction than a gateway to a larger audience here.

Though as long as these sub services and stores are allowed to use the iPad without directly relying on Apple as a payment service, I have no complaints. It's slightly inconvenient having to hit up their webpage rather than accessing it from inside their app, but to me it's more fair for all involved. Apple has me paying them to use their platform, 3rd parties are making money off it without having to pay a hugely disproportionate amount to access the platform, and prices are kept relatively low.

But if Apple takes this away. Forces these companies to use them, things will be considerably different, and worse for everyone except Apple.

...at least in the short term. In the long term, it's bad for even Apple, considering it'll make their competition look more appealing to developers.

And, apparently, almost all of this money is funneled back into supporting and improving the App Store.

I support that, but Apple does have plenty of ways of making money without gouging 3rd parties directly.

This whole thing should be a choice, not a requirement.