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

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

That's pretty much what Apple is doing.

only if you purchase the subscription through safari

[viacavour]

Other apps like DropBox abide by the rules. MS broke the rule and is trying to play games.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

A lot of people wouldn't be paying for SkyDrive space if not for the iOS app and in-app payments.

Highly doubtful

[picciano]

Originally Posted by Stella

For example, Best Buy don't take commission for all future MMO game subscriptions when that product was purchased at its store.

Thanks for giving them THAT idea...

[Judas1]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

That's just wrong. Of course there is an agreement between the two parties.

Then why is there a disagreement between the two parties?

[Bezetos]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Because their position to be the payment processor has a substantial effect on improving sales. A lot of people wouldn't be paying for SkyDrive space if not for the iOS app and in-app payments.

Huh, what?

People want to pay 30% more so that their purchase is done via in-app payments?

In-app payments work for micro transactions, not for bigger purchases. I don't think anyone would by SkyDrive space because you can do it via in-app payments...

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

That's exactly what Apple is doing.

That's what Apple is forcing people to do. It'd be like if you bought your copy of WoW at Gamestop, you had to buy subscription cards at their store to continue playing the game. They're not allowing you to pay Blizzard directly.

In normal retail situations, you have other choices. You can go to Best Buy and get your copy there, or order it directly from Blizzard themselves. With iOS, you have to use Apple for everything. There are usually ways around it. Developers don't have to use IAP if they don't want to. It's inconvenient for everyone involved, but still an option. The interesting thing about this situation is Apple isn't even allow that. It's either Apple gets a cut, or no one gets anything at all.

It's greedy. Flat out plain and simple.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Judas1

Then why is there a disagreement between the two parties?

Because one party doesn't want to follow the terms of that agreement?

Are you really unaware that developers need to agree to Apple's terms in order to offer their apps on the App Store?

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

That's ridiculous, but at least semi justifiable. They're hosting and advertising the e-books after all. Much the same way Apple hosts and advertises apps, and thus deserve a cut of the payment there.

But this is for subscription services, which Apple would normally have nothing to do with if they didn't strong-arm their way into the middle of it all. They're taking a cut for something they don't directly deserve.

Books are one-time sales and is clear cut.

For subscription service, the revenue is variable but long term. If Apple allow MS to get away, it means a service provider can break the rule, or any rule; do a dirt cheap, money losing subscription promo first to get users, then cut the link and run away.

It is also unfair to the other service providers who invest in the long term together with Apple.

[luqtotheman]

All the fuss and fighting for no reason.

it's like pay taxing, apple created a environment where people can make money and profit. They feel they should get a cut no matter what. Yell 30% is crazy all you want but in the end microsoft wants to be apart of their app store.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

That's what Apple is forcing people to do.

That's just FUD.

It'd be like if you bought your copy of WoW at Gamestop, you had to buy subscription cards at their store to continue playing the game. They're not allowing you to pay Blizzard directly.

Not at all. It's like Gamestop agreeing to carry a free version of Wow, but only on the condition that Blizzard allows them to sell subscription cards as well. Blizzard is free to sell subscriptions directly to people outside the store.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

That's a subscription card. If someone buys the game, and signs up for a WoW subscription through their credit card, Gamestop gets no cut whatsoever.

Why should they? They're not hosting the WoW servers. They're not even processing the payments by that point.

But Apple is hosting the application, advertising, webmasters, bandwidth in their store. All that costs money. The iTunes store should be self sustaining, not loosing money.

[Judas1]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Because one party doesn't want to follow the terms of that agreement?

Are you really unaware that developers need to agree to Apple's terms in order to offer their apps on the App Store?

You're not getting it. You gave an example where two agreed to a mutually beneficial deal. Here, you have apple trying to strong arm Microsoft for a cut with a non mutually benefitial tos. And you claim that there is an agreement?

[FSMBP]

Originally Posted by inkswamp

Sure, there's bias in Gruber's site. There's bias in every site/blog but the question is whether or not it's unreasonable to the extent that it makes the site not worth reading. Gruber, in my experience, isn't terribly biased despite being primarily an Apple-focused site.

And no, Gruber often brings up his own gripes about Apple that haven't been acknowledged elsewhere beforehand. They're primarily about UI issues which seems to be his pet peeve.



I pointed that out because it's clear to me that you don't really read Gruber's site frequently enough to criticize it accurately. The fact that you didn't even write the name of the site correctly is a dead-giveaway. Try following his site if you want to criticize it. There are legitimate things to criticize him for (one being that he occasionally engages other sites/bloggers in extended pissing matches that are far less interesting to his readers than he assumes) but an unreasonable bias in favor of Apple isn't one.

I used to read his site every day from 2009-2011 (I stopped because of the bias - but I still read it every now & then). Just because I didn't spell it right in a random forum post isn't a dead giveaway of anything. I've spelled MacRumors as "Mac Rumors" but I frequent the site daily; it doesn't mean anything other than you over analyze pointless issues.

[ChazUK]

Originally Posted by HenryDJP

The annual subscription and required software is hardly a boat load of cash against the revenue acquired from in-app purchases. Now you're worried that poor MS is paying too much? OKAY.

And consumers? Will we be paying less for Apple's hardware once they shoe-horn more money from us/developers prividers via in app subscriptions?

I'll be totally honest with you, i care very little for Microsoft as they can pretty much afford whatever Apple tries to take from them.

Being an armchair CEO and all, I doubt I'd ever understand so it's best we leave this here.

Your caps lock may be broken by the way.

[Judas1]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

But Apple is hosting the application, advertising, webmasters, bandwidth in their store. All that costs money. The iTunes store should be self sustaining, not loosing money.

Hosting is minuscule work compared with the skydrive service. And hosting benefits apple by making a lot of apps easily available benefitting the apple ecosystem, of which that got paid upfront when they sold their apple device.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

But Apple is hosting the application, advertising, webmasters, bandwidth in their store. All that costs money. The iTunes store should be self sustaining, not loosing money.

That is what the $99 annual fee is for.

What advertising do Apple do? They list applications and choose themselves what small minority of applications get to be on a featured list.

[bbeagle]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

*beep* We do.

Again, no we don't. This is all hearsay.

Microsoft's developers are most likely in talks with Apple right now to see how they can create a proper app which won't be rejected. They probably did NOT upload an update, as they know Apple would reject it.

I know that if I created an app with something questionable in it, I would not just upload it and wait for it to be rejected. I would actually talk to Apple first and find out how I can get it approved before all the time-consuming unnecessary upload/rejection cycles.

It's common sense, unless you're an Apple hater.

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by linuxcooldude

But Apple is hosting the application, advertising, webmasters, bandwidth in their store. All that costs money. The iTunes store should be self sustaining, not loosing money.

What leaves a bad taste in people's mouth is that there is no choice. Yes Apple deserves to earn money from their store. However, Apple is also strong arming developers/customers because there is no other option outside of their store. Apple's way or the highway. These analogies concerning Best Buy don't really fly because noone is ever forced to use Best Buy. There is always another choice/vendor.

[skaertus]

The approach Apple is using only works for small companies that abide to its interests. Microsoft will not give its profits away to Apple. Nor will Google, or IBM, or Oracle. These companies are not subordinate to Apple, and some of them are competitors. This 30% charge is the reason why Microsoft will never release a full-featured, non-subscription version of Office for iOS. Nor will Adobe release full versions of Photoshop or Illustrator. These companies are not spending millions of dollars in development and marketing just to give 30% away. Apple must change its policy if it wants iOS devices to become more than just expensive toys.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

That's just FUD.

It's not FUD. 3rd parties can't link to their own services through apps on iOS. Amazon isn't allowed to process payments through their store through the Kindle iPad app. Apple has to handle it. And thus Apple gets 30% of all sales from Amazon's store.

The only way Amazon can avoid paying that 30% is to get you to buy books from their website, and downloading them from their cloud setup. Apple can use their own storefront to sell their own books through their own app. Amazon can't. They have to use Apple as a payment processor.

That's the point. They have to.

Not at all. It's like Gamestop agreeing to carry a free version of Wow, but only on the condition that Blizzard allows them to sell subscription cards as well. Blizzard is free to sell subscriptions directly to people outside the store.

And that's fine, but that isn't what's going on here at all. I need to read up on the article a little more, but it seems that Apple is demanding MS process payments on the Skydrive iOS app through the app store exclusively. There isn't much choice being given.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Judas1

Hosting is minuscule work compared with the skydrive service. And hosting benefits apple by making a lot of apps easily available benefitting the apple ecosystem, of which that got paid upfront when they sold their apple device.

Sure, had MS abided by the rules, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble.

Since they are going to roll out Office subscription early next year, they are just pushing the limit here to see what they can get away with. Windows OS didn't bring in enough $$$ and Xbox next is not ready yet.

[bbeagle]

Originally Posted by Stella

That is what the $99 annual fee is for. .

No, the $99 annual developer fee is for the software, support, training videos, training documentation, and forums.

I would like you to develop software, box it up, and sell it at Best Buy. Best Buy is going to want near 50% of your 'suggested retail price'. And that doesn't include all the time and money you spend on materials to create the box and cd, and your own advertising to tell people to buy it at Best Buy.

[HenryDJP]

Originally Posted by Stella

That is what the $99 annual fee is for.

What advertising do Apple do? They list applications and choose themselves what small minority of applications get to be on a featured list.

$99 is hardly an amount that will break MS and they certainly will make a million times over that amount. Apple also deals with the customer problems in terms of payment, refunds from dissatisfied customers from apps that didn't offer them what they expected and such along with the maintenance from POS transactions. Developers can just sit on their butts and collect revenue while somebody else does all the dirty work. Heck yeah, they should be paying 30% for every transaction initiated from the App Store or iOS.

[viacavour]

Originally Posted by Stella

That is what the $99 annual fee is for.

What advertising do Apple do? They list applications and choose themselves what small minority of applications get to be on a featured list.

Apple does it selectively. Epic Games said Apple handled all the promo for their marque iOS games. And then there's the highlights in the store. But if an app wants to stand out, they should do their promotion.

99 bucks is the developer fee.