we have been here before. if a person wants to park a car in my turf to sell godies, i'll take 30%. i'll care for the grass and the trash. capitalism, in other words.
You sure about that? Sounds like Microsoft is refusing to abide by an agreement that they signed, despite the fact that others do follow their agreements. Where I was raised, that's called "being a liar."
I think that Netflix should pay Apple 30% only if it benefits them enough to warrant it . This sounds like a bit of an Apple apologist, but if Netflix isn't getting enough value from giving up 30% cut to the broker, then they should get out of the deal. However, if Netflix was a tiny company that needed the exposure then the 30% is warranted.
Also, I would do not think it is right if iOS has an 80% market share, leaving limited options for Netflix.
.
And so the role reversal of these two is complete, Apple is the corporate Juggernaut, throwing its weight around and making unreasonable demands and being an ass and Microsoft is the amicable, easy going, reasonable company.
Seriously, i use skydrive a LOT , mostly due to the fact it works through the corporate firewall where dropbox doesn't, to not have skydrive on an iOS device going forward would mean i will be stuck with a crappy android phone for ANOTHER two years (I HATE android OS, but i love some of the android only apps).
I am hoping Apple will pull its rod out of its ass and relax a little on this, preferable before i need to look at a new phone next year, i am hoping to go from my Samsung Galaxy S2 to an iPhone 5S, but its looking like an S3 or Note 2 might be on the cards
That's why the article deserves criticism. The idea that Apple can reject a request to submit an app is just silly. What form would that even take?
MS need to submit the app with the subs feature removed. If it gets rejected than we'll have a news story.
The report claims that Microsoft has offered to remove the subscription options from the SkyDrive app, but Apple has still declined to allow updates to the app. It is unclear why Apple would have refused such an offer, as many similar apps such as Dropbox operate under this model.
From the article: "The report claims that Microsoft has offered to remove the subscription options from the SkyDrive app, but Apple has still declined to allow updates to the app."
And if you added up all the man hours it took Apple to create the AppStore, the model, the R&D and the contracting between them and the developers you'd see that the developers have it better than you think. Why else would the developers adhere to Apple's T&C and pay the 30% if they didn't think they weren't getting a good deal out of it?
There is no point for Microsoft in selling a full version of Office for iOS while giving away 30% to Apple.
If you start allowing individual developers to have their own payment processing everything will start to go wrong, it's just the tip of the iceberg. How do you know if the payment processing is secure? Who do you contact if you've got a problem? Who catches the flack if the payment processor gets hacked? Where do you draw the line for having your own payment processing?
More importantly though is that it's the income from all the paid for apps and in app purchases that cover the costs of providing free apps. It's an eco-system that works, take away the income from revenue generating apps and Apple couldn't justify providing free apps. I guess most people see all the cheap hosting packages on offer and think it's all given away - Apple will be paying out hundreds of millions every year to provide free apps.
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?
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.
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.
And what's it costing Apple to run Microsoft's servers? Or Netflix? Or Dropbox? The only thing they're responsible for is that initial 15-30 meg download. As has been stated previously, developers already pay Apple for that right.
If Apple wants more, they should demand an upfront charge for subscription services. Apple deserves the 30% for anything they host directly. Nothing beyond.
Yeah, but in a non-digital environment, if someone doesn't want to pay a commission, they're free to open their own store.
On iOS devices, that's not an option. I'm sure a few of the larger companies would gladly host their own applications if given the choice.
You're not getting it.
From the report, Apple, if we take the report at face value, is refusing to update the MS app that removes the subscribe button from the app. MS seems more than willing to have people sign up on their website exclusively for the service. Apple is now, again, according to the report, refusing to allow MS to change the app. This is nothing close to you selling good on a commission. MS is trying to do nothing more than to remove all of the subscribe through the app functionality, which is in compliance with Apple's developer agreement.
That isn't the argument - the argument is that Apple no more "conduct the transaction" for an app like Netflix or Skydrive than a browser conducts the transaction if you order a pizza online.
Would you think it's OK if browsers started to take a 30% cut from things like that? Most people (including the ones creating the browsers) would not.
And if you added up all the man hours it took Apple to create the AppStore, the model, the R&D and the contracting between them and the developers you'd see that the developers have it better than you think. Why else would the developers adhere to Apple's T&C and pay the 30% if they didn't think they weren't getting a good deal out of it?
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)
Since you are the authority on fact in this case, why don't you enlighten the rest of us.
This is not the first person/company to have their app rejected becuase of this, they are just one of the largest.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/11/3753968/microsoft-apple-skydrive-discussions-ios-app-rumor
That sounds like they SUBMITTED the updated app to me.
Approval process doesn't start until an app is submitted to the process.
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.
... along with the pirates, and other billing issues. Plus hacker attempts on your servers every week.
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.
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?
Again, there is nothing undeserved about a referral fee or commission. It is a common business arrangement.
BaldiMac said:And there is a big difference between offering non-negotiable terms to enter into a business relationship and "forcing" people to do something.
Then why is there a disagreement between the two parties?
We are working off of assumptions here since proper journalism is severely lacking here.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.
No, MS have offered to update it. They need to actually update it and resubmit it to get it approved. Nowhere in the article or the source does it say that MS have actually updated it. Until they do, it will keep getting knocked back.
Microsoft, TNW has learned, has a new version of the application ready to go, including a key bug fix that would rectify a crashing bug, but cannot get it through.