So why does Apple allow Spotify, Netflix and Kindle in the App Store without offering IAP?Or choose a platform that fits your needs better.
I understand the issue very well. Nothing in this invalidates market economics.You don’t understand the issue.
The first and only real answer is because that's the way Apple chooses to do business. If their customers don't like it, then Apple is punished in the marketplace.So why does Apple allow Spotify, Netflix and Kindle in the App Store without offering IAP?
Agreed. Why is Microsoft FORCED.....again FORCED.....to provide the IAP? There is NO CHANCE you can have an existing Microsoft subscription and use that? You MUST....again MUST BUY your subscription from the App Store for this?So why does Apple allow Spotify, Netflix and Kindle in the App Store without offering IAP?
Microsoft aren’t forcing people giving away free apps or games to sell something within it to take advantage of 30% cut. They aren’t arguing with the 30% cut, they’re arguing that a consumption only app that they have no intention of selling anything through is being forced to have in app purchases in it by Apple so that Apple can take 30%. This is an app intended for pre-existing customers, not one to make new ones.Microsoft ALSO takes 30% from their store and Xbox.....Why don't they go first to show Apple how easy it is?
Except for the fact that Xbox streaming isn’t done on any Apple servers. All Apple does in this case is serve up a 100Mb app.Microsoft's 30% fee makes releasing games on Xbox "impossible". They should allow people to install other stores and not pay any fees.
As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a car manufacturer having an app to use with the cars they sell, but Apple force the car manufacturer to allow customers to book and pay for your annual servicing in the app, and surrender 30% of each booking.
Where is it stated that Microsoft MUST do this.....and you CANNOT link your existing Microsoft subscription. Why can't it act just like Netflix where I simply log in to my Microsoft account with the subscription already on my account?Microsoft aren’t forcing people giving away free apps or games to sell something within it to take advantage of 30% cut. They aren’t arguing with the 30% cut, they’re arguing that a consumption only app that they have no intention of selling anything through is being forced to have in app purchases in it by Apple so that Apple can take 30%. This is an app intended for pre-existing customers, not one to make new ones.
As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a car manufacturer having an app to use with the cars they sell, but Apple force the car manufacturer to allow customers to book and pay for your annual servicing in the app, and surrender 30% of each booking.
Except for the fact that Xbox streaming isn’t done on any Apple servers. All Apple does in this case is serve up a 100Mb app.
Apple Staff are the ones that get involved on subscription matters. I have canceled/refunded/questioned/etc about a dozen purchases and subscriptions.....all with Apple staff and not the developer directly. Those folks deserve to be paid, ideally more than they are paid now.Except for the fact that Xbox streaming isn’t done on any Apple servers. All Apple does in this case is serve up a 100Mb app.
They don’t deserve 30% for that. Now if Apple wants to host cloud gaming servers, that’s a different discussion.
Xbox does host the game file, runs the download servers for your 150GB cod updates, and runs the cloud gaming servers for your streaming games.
It’s not, it’s just different because Apple says it is, they’ve decided cloud streaming apps for gaming must include IAPs. Likely because it’s an emerging market and they can get away with it, whereas with Netflix, Spotify etc they realise they’re huge well established services and losing them from the App Store all together could damage iPhone sales massively. It’s all self serving.How is this anpp any different than Netflix, Spotify or Kindle all of which are able to exist on the App Store without offering in-app purchase? What determines whether an app requires IAP or not?
No they wouldn’t, Microsoft isn’t trying to get new customers, they’re not trying to sell anything, Microsoft is trying to give away a free app with no IAPs to their existing customers. Christ on a bike, read the article before commenting.No, Apple provides a well developed customer base with preloaded credit cards and a higher than average disposable income. That's what Microsoft would be paying for (and the price drops after the 2nd year).
Then what is the issue? Just increase the IAP a bit so you still get the same amount with the 30% upcharge. If people can use the existing subscriptions it won't be a big deal.No they wouldn’t, Microsoft isn’t trying to get new customers, they’re not trying to sell anything, Microsoft is trying to give away a free app with no IAPs to their existing customers. Christ on a bike, read the article before commenting.
My days, read the article and understand the issue. It doesn’t matter if you have other apps that you’ve dealt with Apple customer service with for their subscriptions. Microsoft aren’t trying to sell a subscription, they aren’t trying to sell any IAPs, or sell anything at all. They’re trying to give away a free app to their pre-existing customers, but Apple are forcing them to include IAPs. So no, they don’t deserve to be paid.Apple Staff are the ones that get involved on subscription matters. I have canceled/refunded/questioned/etc about a dozen purchases and subscriptions.....all with Apple staff and not the developer directly. Those folks deserve to be paid, ideally more than they are paid now.
I have read the article. Thanks. If MS or any customers don't like how Apple operates, if there is a priority on cloud gaming for a segment of Apple's customers, Apple will suffer in the marketplace. Again, this is the only real mechanism that works.No they wouldn’t, Microsoft isn’t trying to get new customers, they’re not trying to sell anything, Microsoft is trying to give away a free app with no IAPs to their existing customers. Christ on a bike, read the article before commenting.
ANY support staff needs to be paid.My days, read the article and understand the issue. It doesn’t matter if you have other apps that you’ve dealt with Apple customer service with for their subscriptions. Microsoft aren’t trying to sell a subscription, they aren’t trying to sell any IAPs, or sell anything at all. They’re trying to give away a free app to their pre-existing customers, but Apple are forcing them to include IAPs. So no, they don’t deserve to be paid.
Do you and others seriously not know what it costs to host an App Store with all the features apples App Store has? Why isn't anyone going after Google or Steam that charge the *exact* same amount? 30% is actually incredibly reasonable if you knew what people paid in the past. (It was around 95% by the way to a publisher, sometimes even higher).
Want to know who else charges 30%? Microsoft. For Xbox games.
The past is irrelevant. Nobody cares what retail margins on boxed software used to be 30 years ago.
Because that damages their product and customer perception. If people see or hear that the subscription is $X a month they could be put off it and it gives the image of an over priced service. They shouldn’t have to damage their reputation/marketing because Apple have decided that this one very specific genre of app has to include IAPs so they can take a cut of something they have no right to.Then what is the issue? Just increase the IAP a bit so you still get the same amount with the 30% upcharge. If people can use the existing subscriptions it won't be a big deal.
So now you're saying that Apple DOES provide a value that Microsoft wants? Then pay for that value. Or don't. The market will sort this all out. Perhaps not in the way you prefer, but your personal preference doesn't determine the market.Because that damages their product and customer perception. If people see or hear that the subscription is $X a month they could be put off it and it gives the image of an over priced service. They shouldn’t have to damage their reputation/marketing because Apple have decided that this one very specific genre of app has to include IAPs so they can take a cut of something they have no right to.
It’s stated in the article you’re commenting on.Where is it stated that Microsoft MUST do this.....and you CANNOT link your existing Microsoft subscription. Why can't it act just like Netflix where I simply log in to my Microsoft account with the subscription already on my account?
Oh but they own the platform and the software.