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

[Judas1]

Cydia. Sure. Why not? It's a legal way to distribute an app such as SkyDrive to iOS users. Do we have to pretend that it doesn't exist? Not very important to my point either way. I can pretend with you if you like.

You're defending apples's policy by citing a way around apple's policy through jail breaking. Are we going to pretend that makes sense?

 

[token787]

Since I bought my first Mac this year and changed over to Apple, all I have read and learned is that Apple fights with everyone. Sheeeesh!

 

[Renzatic]

They're really no different than Microsoft in that regard, just much more upfront about it.

 

[vandeetz]

You are making a few assumptions. Here is a reply from another poster earlier in the thread.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=16468024#post16468024

I understand I'm making some assumptions, but the thread you have me look it is making assumptions the same as me. the only difference is that they come to different conclusions.

this doesn't make either of us right, but it certainly doesn't make my points moot until we have seen an article that fills in the blanks

 

[Judas1]

When I ran a retail store, we charged a commission when we sold third-party services. Nobody thought this was strange or childish.

Because you helped sell the products, and it was a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some times, for big companies, their name brand is what sells the products. Therefore apple doesn't deserve a cut.

 

[extensor]

Because you helped sell the products, and it was a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some times, for big companies, their name brand is what sells the products. Therefore apple doesn't deserve a cut.

Wow, that is some crazy logic. If you are correct and Apple is not beneficial in any way then the question becomes why does the big company even need Apple?

 

[BaldiMac]

I can't think of a single scenario where nearly $650,000,000 a year for the simple honor of having your app available on a platform would be considered worthwhile.

Specially not when the competition does it for so much less, and has done so since the dawn of the OS.

...hell, it'd cost less for Netflix to build a rocket, launch it into space, and have it explode into the company logo for no other reason than "oh well, we've got money to burn" than it would be for them to let Apple let them use their IAP setup. It's ridiculous.

Though to be fair, you are half right. If you're a small company without the infrastructure, going with Apple is a good thing. You'll make money while they handle the back end. But as I've said before, it should be a choice, not a requirement.

Once again, you are ignoring the choice that you pointed out! The choice is

a) Sell the service without Apple's support, like Netflix does, or
b) Sell the service with Apple's support and pay them.

With Netflix, Dropbox, MS, and the rest, they're paying tons for pointless redundancy.

No, they're not because they chose option (a).

You're defending apples's policy by citing a way around apple's policy through jail breaking. Are we going to pretend that makes sense?

Whatever. We can pretend Cydia doesn't exist. It's irrelevant to my point.

I understand I'm making some assumptions, but the thread you have me look it is making assumptions the same as me. the only difference is that they come to different conclusions.

this doesn't make either of us right, but it certainly doesn't make my points moot until we have seen an article that fills in the blanks

The difference is that he differentiates between facts and assumptions. You presented your assumptions as facts.

Because you helped sell the products, and it was a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some times, for big companies, their name brand is what sells the products. Therefore apple doesn't deserve a cut.

Yep. And as long as they don't sell their subscriptions through apps sold on the app store, Apple doesn't get a cut. But if they decide it is beneficial to take advantage of Apple's store, Apple gets a cut. Pretty simple. Same way it worked in my business.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Because you helped sell the products, and it was a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some times, for big companies, their name brand is what sells the products. Therefore apple doesn't deserve a cut.

If its a well recognized product or service brand you most likely don't need an in-app purchase or a link directly to the apps website. It is likely the person already has an account for that service and just needs the iOS app for added functionality after the fact.

If so they don't need it.

 

[danranda]

1. Microsoft have to pay Apple a yearly subscription as a developer.
2. Microsoft have to buy and use Apple desktop level hardware to develop applications on iOS.
3. Consumers have to pay Apple hundreds of Dollars/Euros/Pounds/Yen/Whatever to have access to these applications

Don't you think third parties and consumers pony up enough money already? People are acting like it's a free ride for consumers and developers to use Apple's services.

EDIT: And that armchair CEO thing? Rather than have a discussion, it's better to try and belittle those with a differing opinion to your own?

Nice!

OK.. here's an intelligent discussion for you. Stop acting like devs and customers pay apple "For the privilege" of developing or accessing apps. The money they spend gets them something in return... for example (numbered in response to your outline)
1. a) Devs pay $99 a year and receive SDKs, real tools used to make apps with.
1. b) Devs also receive and account that allows them to monitor some sort of stats on their apps in the ecosystem as well as to track the income they will receive as a result of their apps' purchases
1.. c) A Dev account also enables the ability to side-load apps into your device (usually for testing purposes, but also useful for just making your own custom app for something unique to you)

All of these tools and services cost apple something to maintain, update, distribute, fix bugs within, etc.

2. I'm not certain Microsoft "Has to Buy" desktop macs. They already have a Mac Team in house, and I suspect that team is capable of programming for iOS on the same macs, but even if I'm wrong and MS had to hire a new team and provide them with new, additional mac hardware to program with, that is the cost of business. If I want to develop for any of Microsofts technologies, like SilverLight or Windows, I'm pretty sure it might require a technology on an MS platform, and if it does, that's the cost of my business entering that market. On top of all of that, and more specific to my main point of receiving value for the purchase, MS isn't paying for the privilege to develop an app. They are paying for a high end desktop platform, just like I am when I buy a mac desktop. It's a purchase of a fully working machine. What they do with it is their own business.

3) (and this is the most idiotic statement here). Customers aren't walking into Apple Stores saying "what do I do to get the latest instagram app?" to have an Apple employee say "you must pay us $300.. then you can download the free app". Instead, customers are paying hundreds for a high end smartphone capable of doing many things, and if you want it to do something more, you can probably ADD TO IT with an app.

Are Samsung, Nokia, MS, Motorola, et al forcing people to pay $50, $99, $200 or more to just access an app store too?! How about Steam? it runs on a device of some sort right? usually a computer i hear. Is Valve being super greedy expecting you to buy a computing device with decent graphics capability in order to play one of their games?


In Summary, People are paying for real objects and or services. They can then add a Dev account for an additional fee and make apps, or add more apps to the device (for free or a fee determined by the creator of the app).
These people are not paying hundreds of dollars to get to facebook. They might only be using for facebook, but that's their prerogative. It's not like all they are getting is a FaceBook Phone

 

[Judas1]

Once again, you are ignoring the choice that you pointed out! The choice is

a) Sell the service without Apple's support, like Netflix does, or
b) Sell the service with Apple's support and pay them.



No, they're not because they chose option (a).



Whatever. We can pretend Cydia doesn't exist. It's irrelevant to my point.



The difference is that he differentiates between facts and assumptions. You presented your assumptions as facts.



Yep. And as long as they don't sell their subscriptions through apps sold on the app store, Apple doesn't get a cut. But if they decide it is beneficial to take advantage of Apple's store, Apple gets a cut. Pretty simple. Same way it worked in my business.

I don't know how ill get to to you. Apple shouldn't get anything when it doesn't do anything. I'm sure that not a strange concept. Now lets decide if apple did anything. Did apple write the program? No. Does apple help maintain the infractructure? No. Thats all handled by Microsoft. Do apple benefit from the app? Yes, they get a better ecosystem. So why should apple get a cut?

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't know how ill get to to you. Apple shouldn't get anything when it doesn't do anything. I'm sure that not a strange concept. Now lets decide if apple did anything. Did apple write the program? No. Does apple help maintain the infractructure? No. Thats all handled by Microsoft. Do apple benefit from the app? Yes, they get a better ecosystem. So why should apple get a cut?

I'm not sure how you missed the part where Apple provides the store to sell the app and handles the transaction and user verification.

Again, this isn't a unique business arrangement. I did the same exact thing when I ran a retail store. I sold third-party services in exchange for a commission. This is common. To say this shouldn't be allowed is ridiculous.

 

[Judas1]

I'm not sure how you missed the part where Apple provides the store to sell the app and handles the transaction and user verification.

Again, this isn't a unique business arrangement. I did the same exact thing when I ran a retail store. I sold third-party services in exchange for a commission. This is common. To say this shouldn't be allowed is ridiculous.

There's no choice. The AppStore has to be used. And agin let me tell you. Hosting is the easiest a nd cheapest of the services.

 

[BaldiMac]

There's no choice. The AppStore has to be used. And agin let me tell you. Hosting is the easiest a nd cheapest of the services.

Who cares how easy hosting is? Seems like you just ignored what I said. I never claimed they were being paid for hosting. They are getting paid a commission the same way I did when I sold a third-party service at the retail store I ran.

There was no choice for transaction processing in my store either. And if a provider want me to stock a free product that promoted their paid service, I would expect a cut or refuse to carry the product.

 

[Judas1]

Who cares how easy hosting is? Seems like you just ignored what I said. I never claimed they were being paid for hosting. They are getting paid a commission the same way I did when I sold a third-party service at the retail store I ran.

There was no choice for transaction processing in my store either. And if a provider want me to stock a free product that promoted their paid service, I would expect a cut or refuse to carry the product.

Um, a real store is different than an online store. And a brand name is different than a no name. You claim to be in the retail business?

 

[BaldiMac]

Um, a real store is different than an online store. And a brand name is different than a no name.

They are different. But not in a way that matters to this discussion.

You claim to be in the retail business?

Not any more.

 

[Renzatic]

There was no choice for transaction processing in my store either. And if a provider want me to stock a free product that promoted their paid service, I would expect a cut or refuse to carry the product.

Right, and you'd deserve one.

What Apple is doing is like asking for a cut of the company's profits because you're selling it in their store. Like say you sell McAffe's antivirus (bad example, but run with me here), you're not only asking for a cut on the shelf price, but also require them to go through you for any future purchases, and get cut of their paid upgrades and virus definitions for that customer from then until eternity.

See, right now, third party developers have the option to not use Apple payment setup through iOS. I don't agree with Apple doing the latter, but it's not an issue so long as it remains a choice. Now if at any point it becomes mandatory, then it's simply apple getting a cut of a developers profits simply by being a forced middleman in the situation.

Though if we were to break it down to the fundamentals, I believe our differences come from our perspective on the OS. I'm assuming you see iOS as Apple Land. It's Apple's OS, Apple's rules. If they want to charge you a 3rd of your profits, that's the price you pay.

I see it as a neutral ground, as an environment moreso than a storefront. Apple's job is to administer to it and make sure everything runs smoothly.

The app store muddies the water a bit, but I still consider it...an OS. I believe any developer should be allowed to make their programs available to any platform (within reason, of course). If they want to make their service available to iPad owners, then Apple shouldn't drag them down by dipping into the services these 3rd parties support and foster on their own without any support from Apple whatsoever.

 

[BaldiMac]

Right, and you'd deserve one.

Your back! Much better discussion than Judas1!

What Apple is doing is like asking for a cut of the company's profits because you're selling it in their store. Like say you sell McAffe's antivirus (bad example, but run with me here), you're not only asking for a cut on the shelf price, but also require them to go through you for any future purchases, and get cut of their paid upgrades and virus definitions for that customer from then until eternity.

We've already covered this. Actually what Apple is doing in this case is saying is:

If you want to distribute your free product through our store, we want any transactions that come through our platform to use our transaction system, so our customers don't have to worry about multiple, potentially unsafe transaction providers. We believe this added security will increase the willingness of our customers to spend money on our developer's apps and services. Look at our App Store revenues compared to our competitors for evidence.

We will charge you the same 30% of each transaction that we charge everyone else, since we don't care if you are selling a product of service. There isn't much difference to us.

You are free to skip out on our IAP system if you want to process your own payments, but we do require that you do not link to or promote any other payment method within apps sold in our store.

See, right now, third party developers have the option to not use Apple payment setup through iOS. I don't agree with Apple doing the latter, but it's not an issue so long as it remains a choice. Now if at any point it becomes mandatory, then it's simply apple getting a cut of a developers profits simply by being a forced middleman in the situation.

Yep.

Though if we were to break it down to the fundamentals, I believe our differences come from our perspective on the OS. I'm assuming you see iOS as Apple Land. It's Apple's OS, Apple's rules. If they want to charge you a 3rd of your profits, that's the price you pay.

I see it as a neutral ground, as an environment moreso than a storefront. Apple's job is to administer to it and make sure everything runs smoothly.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I think our fundamental difference is based on the fact that you want iOS to be an open platform like Windows. But I recognize that it's not.

Apple has retained some degree of control of the OS in order to prevent many of the problems that have plagued open platforms.

The app store muddies the water a bit, but I still consider it...an OS. I believe any developer should be allowed to make their programs available to any platform (within reason, of course). If they want to make their service available to iPad owners, then Apple shouldn't drag them down by dipping into the services these 3rd parties support and foster on their own without any support from Apple whatsoever.

Yep. I consider Apple's control of the platform to have significant advantages that benefit me, while the disadvantages don't affect me in any significant way.

 

[Renzatic]

Your back!

Yeah, my car's in the shop, it's too cold to walk around outside, and the moderators deleted my personal moment of zen, so yeah, I'm back.

At least for this one last post, cuz...no offense, we've been going back and forth for 6 hours plus now. I kinda need to take a break.

I'll say that I see where you're coming from, I just don't totally agree 100% with it. I can also understand why Apple would want to put themselves in the middle for security reasons. I just think 30% is far too high a price to pay for a big company to jump into the glories and wonders of the iOS ecosystem. They don't get enough in return for the cost.

 

[Glideslope]

Yeah, my car's in the shop, it's too cold to walk around outside, and the moderators deleted my personal moment of zen, so yeah, I'm back.

At least for this one last post, cuz...no offense, we've been going back and forth for 6 hours plus now. I kinda need to take a break.

I'll say that I see where you're coming from, I just don't totally agree 100% with it. I can also understand why Apple would want to put themselves in the middle for security reasons. I just think 30% is far too high a price to pay for a big company to jump into the glories and wonders of the iOS ecosystem. They don't get enough in return for the cost.

Sorry to hear about the Zen Moment. They don't understand.

 

[Renzatic]

Sorry to hear about the Zen Moment. They don't understand.

Contra shirt was truly the greatest thing I've ever seen in my life. It was... beautiful.

AND THEY TOOK IT AWAY!

 

[jameskatt]

The solution is simple - let Microsoft customers buy from Microsoft's site

The solution is simple - let Microsoft customers buy storage from Microsoft's site. They can then log onto Skydrive with their username and password.

Everyone else does this - DropBox, SugarSync, Box.net, PogoPlug, Amazon with the Kindle App, Barnes and Noble and their Nook App, iTeleport, Evernote, Netflix, Hulu, MarketCircle, etc. etc. etc. etc.

If you want to bypass paying Apple's share, then simply have your customers buy directly from you on your own website, not from within the app or from a link within the app.

Of course, by doing so, you have to do your own marketing. You can't just ride on Apple's back. You have to actively attract customers to your service. Duh.

Microsoft is trying to bypass Apple's rules - which it applies to everyone. Of course, it will be shot down.

 

[StyxMaker]

Say you work for Gamestop and someone bought a copy of World of Warcraft, should Blizzard have to pay 30% of each monthly subscription charge to Gamestop?

Yes, if they come into your store to pay for the monthly subscriptions.

----------

Also, does Gamestop charge you* hundreds of dollars to enter their store?

*the customer

I've not had to pay 'hundreds' of dollars to enter the iOS App Store, unless you're talking about the purchase price of the iOS device. Why would you want to access the iOS App Store if you don't have an iOS device? Or who would buy an iOS device just to get access to the iOS App Store?

----------

Apple has more money and this has nothing to do with IAP.
MS removed the subscription feature and Apple still won't approve.
The signup pages are on 3rd party apps, not the SkyDrive app itself.

Reading comprehension around here is sorely lacking.

Currently this is all just speculation on your part.

 

[gotluck]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I think our fundamental difference is based on the fact that you want iOS to be an open platform like Windows. But I recognize that it's not.

Apple has retained some degree of control of the OS in order to prevent many of the problems that have plagued open platforms.



Yep. I consider Apple's control of the platform to have significant advantages that benefit me, while the disadvantages don't affect me in any significant way.

Its likely apparent I would love an open iOS...

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that the option to install apps from 3rd party sources would negatively impact you as a user? Let's just say that the app store would remain the same, with the option of manually installing apps added - much like the way I believe a developer account/ID can do.

I understand why Apple and potentially developers may not like this but I cannot wrap my head around why a user would want limitations on what they can put on their device. Sure, a user may not be tech savvy, but its not like they can't just stick to the app store, with no change in user experience.

 

[StyxMaker]

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.

Of course we have a choice. We can choose not to buy an iOS device, or we can choose not to develop iOS applications.

----------

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.

If I go down the street to Office Max and buy MS Office you think MS gets 100% of that retail price? What's the difference between that and Apple taking 30%?

 

[StyxMaker]

They can't use it

Certainly they can use their own billing service. They just have to do it totally outside the app that was distributed through the Apple App Store.