Apple blocking SkyDrive from iOS store, wants cut of revenue

http://microsoft-news.com/apple-blocking-skydrive-from-ios-store-wants-cut-of-revenue/

by recoiledsnake • 14 years ago

178 165 14 years ago

microsoft-news.com

notatoad2• 14 years ago

Seems only fair, everybody else has to pay 30% on purchases made in-app, Microsoft should too.

The only thing worse than a stupid rule is a stupid rule that some people get excluded from.

nanodeath• 14 years ago

I think the main problem they point out is if I get x gigs of space for 2 years, for which I pay monthly, and then switch to Android after 6 months, Apple still gets paid 30% for each the remaining 18 months. Which sort of makes sense, and sort of doesn't...

JasonFruit• 14 years ago

Are there other in-app purchases that can leave the iDevice? I'm wondering about precedent.

hdra5• 14 years ago

The fact that everyone has to pay 30% for putting a link to their subscription sign up itself is not fair. The TNW article goes more into more detail on this.

megablast2• 14 years ago

It kind of is/kind of isn't.

Without this rule, it makes it easy to circumvent Apples payment altogether.

And of course, there are some things that Apple should be be getting 30% for.

It is not black and white. I wonder how Microsoft will handle this in their store? I would be surprised if they did not copy Apples model, as they already have.

nsxwolf2• 14 years ago

MS can get around this the way Amazon has and redirect users to the web site. Or, I'm sure they can work something special out with Apple - they are Microsoft, after all.

BTW, Microsoft has done a real bang-up job with SkyDrive. The free versions of Word and Excel are fantastic, and even scroll with native app like speed in the browser. SO much better than the horrible code base they use for the Word/Excel viewers in Outlook Web Access and Sharepoint.

hdra5• 14 years ago

Read the linked TNW article, they are not even allowed to do that. Not even the 3rd party developers using the Skydrive SDK is allowed to do that.

nsxwolf2• 14 years ago

Hmm, I stand corrected. That's quite a pickle there for Microsoft.

pablasso• 14 years ago

Well, it may be a sucky rule, but it's been there for a long time. They can't say they're surprised.

crazygringo• 14 years ago

So I'm very curious if anyone can help see a "intuitive fair line" better than I can (because I can't find one).

On the one hand, it makes perfect sense Apple wants 30% on apps. They run the store.

On the other hand, it seems like Amazon should be able to sell books, Dropbox should be able to sell space, etc., without paying 30% -- otherwise it's financially impossible.

But if you allow apps to sell content within without paying 30%, then all of a sudden all apps become free, selling "upgrading functionality" within, and the app store is no longer viable for Apple.

You can't even make a rule like "reselling 3rd party content is exempt from the fee", because apps will claim additional functionality as 3rd-party. You can't make a rule that "content accessible on other devices is exempt from the fee", because gamemakers will just make their in-game purchases accessible on the Android version too, or something.

Can anyone think of a clear, unambiguous rule that would allow things like Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon, etc. to get around the 30% fee, but without allowing loopholes that would allow everyone to skirt it? I swear my brain thinks there's a distinction, but I can't figure out what it is.

JuDue2• 14 years ago

This is a good point.

Also wondering what's stopping MS from doing down the DropBox path and not allowing purchases on iOS.

hdra5• 14 years ago

Microsoft offered to remove all paid subscription option, but the compromise was rejected.

Danieru• 14 years ago

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

All pricing introduces inefficiency without perfect price discrimination. If you charge a fixed rate for a product or service you exclude the users where the wealth created is less than the rate charged, aka the marginal consumer. You can improve this by charge lower prices for the marginal buyers. You can then do a similar thing for very high value consumers. This is why Microsoft sells so many versions of Windows.

In the real world price discrimination is very crude. Consider that Microsoft only has ~6 versions of windows, that is only 6 discrete steps to covers the several magnitudes of value created for users.

The reality is there is no algorithmic way to determine the marginal apps. Thus if Apple wants to charge 30% for all apps except those for which this is excessive they are best off doing things on a case-by-case basis.

pserwylo2• 14 years ago

I agree. Perhaps a nice way to solve it is to tell Google and Apple:

  "Let people do in-app purchasing however they want, if they use yours, you can take a cut."

By all means, you make it as easy as possible to integrate with your solution by providing tools and support, and then you take a cut if they choose to make it.

Of course, this will never happen, but if it did (either because they thought it was morally right, or because of regulation), then it seems like a way to solve this issue.

elithrar• 14 years ago

> By all means, you make it as easy as possible to integrate with your solution by providing tools and support, and then you take a cut if they choose to make it.

The problem here is two-fold:

1) 30% is a lot, and many large scale developers will choose the homebrew/third party library solution 2) It begets a bad user experience when users have to be cautious about IAP, remember another set (or sets) of credentials, chase yet another company for refunds - and Apple are likely to cop the blame even if it's not their IAP solution the dev is using.

hayksaakian• 14 years ago

It would make more sense if apple did anything to help attach content delivered via the store to specific individuals.

Recently there was a story about a game that was 'killed' by piracy because apple didn't provide a way of connecting players to iTunes accounts, in order to ban pirates.

There's very little intrinsic value with the app store.

How about if you use the app store to deliver your content, you are given a unique id to tie to specific devices?

Or maybe if you could host content tied to in app purchases on iTunes?

To me it seems fair to say 'if you use their resources to conduct a transaction and deliver content, you should pay them'

radley• 14 years ago

Do Apple-based in-app subscriptions until you hit critical mass.

Cancel all Apple subscriptions but maintain 30-60 free trial / continuous open use to existing customers.

Introduce new direct subscription with 30% discount (below previous rate i.e. minus Apple's cut) if signed up within 30-60 days.

jthol2• 14 years ago

10%-15% cut if you use your own payment processing? You lose the one click convenience customers have to add all this extra data etc.

notatoad2• 14 years ago

I think the unfair part is the rule that you can't link to your website if users can buy things on your website. If apple wants to maintain a monopoly on in-app purchases that's their prerogative, but not allowing you to link out to an external purchase is just a huge dick move that seems unnecessarily desperate.

spullara3• 14 years ago

If you allow people to get around the in-app purchase they will and the whole platform will suffer.

ra• 14 years ago

I think the problem is, flat 30% on in-app purchase is just too much when you're working on a margin.

One solution would be for Apple to introduce plans.

eg:

classic - flat 30% - no monthly fee

pro - flat 15% - $500 monthly fee

irock - flat 7.5% - $2,000 monthly fee

That's just an example, but I think the main issue is that a flat 30% just doesn't work for some types of business.

[edit: fixed confusing typos]

spullara3• 14 years ago

Those businesses are mostly middle-men businesses that are already offered by Apple (disk space, books, music, movies, apps, etc).

ddlatham3• 14 years ago

Allow apps to charge users the extra 43% if they are buying from the app compared to the price they would pay direct, without the markup.

goronbjorn2• 14 years ago

Why is it "financially impossible"?

btilly• 14 years ago

You have missed the core issue.

The problem is this. There is online content. The app is one way of accessing that content. Apple wants a 30% cut of everything you make on that online content EVEN THOUGH the user may be primarily accessing that content on another device.

My suggested compromise is this. Any purchase made through the app, Apple should take its 30% cut on. If you've gone through the effort of accessing that content and purchasing it another way, Apple should not be taking a 30% cut.

comex• 14 years ago

I believe your suggestion is already the case.

ghshephard4• 14 years ago

That is precisely the case. In fact, if you go to the effort of using the browser on your iOS device, Apple considers that an "alternative means of purchasing." Indeed, if you past a link to the webapp onto your springboard, and launch it from there, Apple _still_ considers that an alternative means of purchasing.

You really have to be purchasing through an native application before apple asks for a cut.

drewcrawford6• 14 years ago

I think the problem is in how the question is framed. The App Store has always been revenue neutral [1]. It's not a profit center for Apple. It's not about "getting their cut". It's about having one billing statement to look at. It's about eliminating shady billing tactics a la gym memberships. It's about keeping your address out of some developer's mailing list.

You'd be surprised about the extent of this problem. I get e-mails all the time from people who are worried that they have a monthly payment for my app, for example. There are just an awful lot of people who don't "get" software at all and derive real value from simplified one-party billing.

So if you start from the premise that billing for iOS apps has to be brain-dead simple, we arrive at the present rule: any payment that looks like it happens on an iPhone must [2] run through IAP at whatever rate Apple can break even. If your payment collection process consists of people using their fingers on the screen of an iPhone, then it is potentially confusable with IAP by Grandpa and he might get mad at Apple; this is unacceptable. But monetizing your pizza ordering app by handing money to a pizza delivery guy who shows up at your house is not confusable, so it's A-OK.

Now, it's perfectly debatable whether or not consumer confusion is really that big of a problem, or a problem big enough to justify the negative externalities of solving it. But if it is, then the result follows: the solution is to run all the billing through a break-even single party. If you accept the premise, then the rule that is fairest and best and also solves the problem is the rule that we already have.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where the economics of Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon et al seemingly don't allow enough profit margin to pay Apple's overhead to process payments. But I'm not really sure who is to blame for that: the consumers, for being confused about billing; Apple, for trying to fix it for them; Skydrive etc. for not creating a two-tiered pricing structure to charge IAP customers at 30% more; or consumers again for being unwilling to pay an extra 30% for single-party billing.

[1] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_app_store_runs_... [2] there are some exceptions, I'm speaking broadly to make a point

ddlatham3• 14 years ago

If it's merely a break-even proposition for Apple, then perhaps a flat fee per purchase (or at least a maximum) would make more sense and allow services like Dropbox, Skydrive, and Amazon to participate.

rdw• 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure Apple's policies prevent developers from charging a different rate on iOS than they do on other platforms (specifically for subscriptions, but maybe also for one-time IAPs). This definitely protects their platform, but I'm sure there's a shady billing trick that this prevents as well.

fauigerzigerk• 14 years ago

Potential consumer confusion has nothing to do with the size of Apple's cut or how it is structured.

Clearly, a 30% cut is fair for the average $1.5 purchase because it includes fees for payment processing and fixed cost per app.

But Apple will have to decide whether or not they want people to sell more expensive stuff on their platform. Taking a 30% cut on a $100 purchase is not economically viable and it is unnecessary if the goal is to avoid consumer confusion.

They could just charge 50 cents + 5%

pooriaazimi4• 14 years ago

As someone who's an Apple user and will soon be an iOS developer, I'm all for a curated App Store (I actually think Apple should reject more apps! Some apps have been rejected unfairly, and I think they should change their policies slightly to include them), and I'm 100% for this 1-party payment. My only gripe is the 30% cut. Why not make that 15%, or 10%? It would make things sooooo easier for everyone. That %20 is so negligible (for Apple) that I'm sure it falls within error margin...

30% is just too much for a lot of developers/companies.

Flenser• 14 years ago

I'm not sure that the App Store is still revenue neutral, the source you cited was over a year old so things may have changed.

I agree on your point about billing having to be simple for the customer. I wonder about the reverse. If Apple were to release an iCloud app on android, would Google's Rules for Android Store mean that they have to take a cut on all iCloud purchases?

mdkess• 14 years ago

We've had low margin businesses forever, that's not going to change. I agree with what you said, single party billing is great, except Apple also sells software on their platform, and is exempt from the cut.

So that means that Apple is the only one able to sell ebooks on their platform, because who would go to Amazon if they had to pay 30% than in Apple's bookstore both on the platform and off of it (note that Apple explicitly forbids charging more on the app store than elsewhere). Do you think that this is reasonable, considering that Apple has owned a major part of mobile devices over the past 5 years?

If this was just Visa, it would be fine - the playing field would be level. But it's not, and Apple uses this to give themselves a massive competitive advantage. If Toyota bought a bunch of gas station chains and said that non-Toyota cars had to pay 30% more for gas, but made the billing system really straightforward, would you be okay with that?

brown9-2• 14 years ago

The fact that revenue for the App Store in Feb 2011 was "break-even" doesn't mean that Apple never wants it to be a source of profits.

bitcartel2• 14 years ago

Let's dispel the myth that the App Store is not a profit center, that Apple are reluctantly taking a cut from developers in order to cover costs.

If the App Store is a cost center than it should be treated like other cost centers. Would it make sense if Human Resources started charging job applicants a fee of 30% to handle resumes, interviews and contracts?

If the App Store is treated as a business unit in its own right, then the profit'n'loss should take into account hardware sales (the App Store is touted as a selling point), perhaps by internal billing of other departments.

Sure, developers benefit from the App Store, but they also benefit from other departments like Marketing and R&D, who grow the potential market for apps. Should developers help cover their costs too?

The truth is Apple are taking a cut of 30% simply because they can.

johnsea• 14 years ago

>Can anyone think of a clear, unambiguous rule that would allow things like Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon, etc. to get around the 30% fee, but without allowing loopholes that would allow everyone to skirt it?

Simple: alternative stores should be enforced by law. Apple alone deciding what goes onto iDevices is wrong. (Ditto Microsoft with WP). Let the market decide.

chj11• 14 years ago

Exactly. But some may say this is a free market, Apple can do whatever it wants in its own garden.

greedo3• 14 years ago

And hasn't the market decided? Users are buying both Android and iPhone devices, and to a far lesser extent WinFones. Since Android has far higher market share than Apple, it seems like this should be perfect. Yet for people who are actually buying apps online, Apple seems to be doing quite well.

Perhaps you're idea of letting the market decide isn't really focused on the market so much as developers...

politician• 14 years ago

> [These guys] should be able to sell space, etc., without paying 30% -- otherwise it's financially impossible.

The difficulty in finding that "fair line" might be that using government's implicit threat of violence to force Apple to capitulate to these guys demands to be in their store without playing by their rules is inconsistent with a belief in property rights.

iamtherockstar• 14 years ago

I work on the Ubuntu One iOS team. Our apps have this same issue. I think it really affects user experience, because you can't allow sign up for premium features, but you also can't even mention those premium features (say, with a link to where you can find out more). If you don't already know about them, you're not going to find out in the app.

taligent• 14 years ago

Weird. Because Evernote showcases premium features.

hboon• 14 years ago

Because Evernote allows users to buy them through iOS in-app purchases.

geofft3• 14 years ago

You can't link to anything, but I believe you can verbally describe them and that's fine.

pooriaazimi4• 14 years ago

I think you can even point out the url in plain text, like

"Subscribe by visiting www.myapp.com/iphone/subscribe"

(i.e., no link - user has to type that in Safari herself)

spullara3• 14 years ago

You could, you just choose not to pay Apple.

hdra5• 14 years ago

Here is the linked TNW article that goes into more details of the problem: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a...

I am not associated with TNW, I just think that everyone should read it as it seems like there are quite a lot of questions regarding things that has been covered in the article.

mynegation• 14 years ago

I buy stuff from Amazon on the desktop computer and read it on iPad and iPhone Kindle apps. So far works great for me. Dropbox is even easier, you really need to worry about paying for premium once a year, if that, more like once in five years when your credit card expires, so this is a non-issue.

In both cases I downloaded apps because I used desktop versions extensively not vice versa. I wonder if Apple's cut is a big deterrent for mobile-first strategy that was recently discussed in Fred Wilson's post that appeared on HN.

akandiah• 14 years ago

Original article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a...

beedogs• 14 years ago

Thank god for jailbreaking. Apple's devices get a lot more useful when you don't have to play by their idiotic rules.

meaty• 14 years ago

Just buy a different device. Jailbreaking isn't the best option as one day, they might just find a way of making it impossible.

pooriaazimi4• 14 years ago

It is kinda impossible today (compared to golden days of iPhone OS 3.1 - I must've freed a good 50 iPod touches back then (for my friends)!). You have to wait a few months after any major or even point release, and jailbreaking new devices might take up to 7 months (I think that was the case for iPad 3)!

wladimir• 14 years ago

Not only that, but by buying from Apple you are subsidizing the practice anyway, so that next time they can develop an even harder to crack version. Aside from that it's a boondoggle, an economic waste to build protections just to crack them. Better to buy hardware from vendors that allow (or tolerates, such as Samsung) rooting and installing custom firmwares.

Karunamon2• 14 years ago

This kind of garbage is eventually going to attract legislative scrutiny. The iPhone is the single most popular mobile device in at least the USA, and Apple has a complete monopoly on applications for that device.

alayne• 14 years ago

Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly in the smartphone market.

danso• 14 years ago

Android systems are no slouch. I think legislative measures should be a last resort

Karunamon2• 14 years ago

legislative measures should be a last resort

Indeed. I don't see any other possible course of action to resolve these abusive business practices.. do you?

horacio• 14 years ago

Indeed it will certainly attract needed scrutiny. Both by the lawmakers and by the courts.

The presumption by all of these vendors who operate their own app store is that they are legally protected in tying their hardware product (their smartphone, for example) to their online store.

But there is a history in both the written law and from the courts that makes these 'company store' policies illegal.

There is no technical reason whatsoever that prevents a smartphone/tablet vendor from allowing their smartphone/tablet from accessing anybody's online store. An Amazon tablet should be able to visit the Apple online store (if they sold Android apps) just as easily as an iPhone should be able to visit the Android marketplace (if they sold iOS apps.)

Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force you to only buy software for your laptop from their store.

The law has long been clear that this type of market coercion is illegal.

The only reason that today's device vendors are still getting away with this is because the threshold for an outcry hasn't yet been passed. But the more stories we read like this, the louder the volume is from the everyday consumer.

redial• 14 years ago

Aren't you supposed to buy the tires for a Bugatti Vayron directly from Bugatti? If a country buys an F-16, they are also committing to buy all the weapons and ammunition from Lockheed.

And besides, as it stands now, you can buy from other stores, for example, Cydia. Of course, you have to jailbreak your phone, but that is legal in the US, so there is no argument any more.

If you want to keep your warranty, you have to use the App Store.

Jach• 14 years ago

> Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force you to only buy software for your laptop from their store.

Or if Apple could "force" you to only upgrade/fix your laptop at their store? Or if they could "force" you to develop iPhone apps on a Mac? Or if Tesla could "force" you to only buy a replacement battery from them?

I can't imagine any of these companies "forcing" these things, however, unless they're colluding with the government to make alternatives illegal, and then regulations aren't going to help anyway. They can make things inconvenient, which is quite different, and the market has a history of customers going to the competition when the inconvenience factor is high enough. Why invoke legislation at all, especially when the market under consideration is already competitive, which it is with smartphones? (If competition is stagnant and it's a difficult market to enter, then perhaps you have an argument to use government power to remove barriers to entry (often caused by the government) or to level the playing field or to provide incentives to make the market easier to enter.)

geofft3• 14 years ago

You already can't buy books for the Kindle or Nook app via in-app purchase, nor can you pay Dropbox for space. Why is this news when SkyDrive has the same rule?

And why doesn't SkyDrive just go "oh", and like everyone else, remove the in-app purchase option?

Elepsis• 14 years ago

From the (much better) Next Web article which I wish had been linked instead:

Microsoft has persisted in trying to work out a compromise with Apple, but has thus far failed to come to an agreement. The company offered to remove all subscription options from its application, leaving it a non-revenue generating experience on iOS. The offer was rebuffed.

If a service has a subscription option, it seems, and it is not listed in the iOS store, the application cannot, and will not be allowed. That is, unless you are small enough that Apple doesn’t bothers to check. I assume that smaller companies could slip under the radar.

(note for transparency: I worked on the SkyDrive team until a few months ago, but don't know the latest details of this situation.)

CodeCube• 14 years ago

Something that needs a bit of clarification, what do they mean by "offered to remove all subscription options", and "the offer was rebuffed"? Do they mean that they created a new build with the subscription options removed, resubmitted, and had that build rejected? Or do they mean they sent an email to someone at apple and didn't get a response in a timely fashion?

geofft3• 14 years ago

I did not know that. (My only experience here is that the Dropbox SDK's login screen used to link to the website, which linked to the subscription page, and our app was rejected until the Dropbox SDK removed that link.) Thanks!

thoughtsimple2• 14 years ago

Dropbox on my iPhone 5 has a place for purchasing 100GB for $99 in settings. I think they had to decide to give in or not allow signups in their app. They chose to give in to Apple and allow subscriptions in their app.

The Dropbox app only has a single subscription in comparison to several options on their website including paying monthly. I guess Apple is OK with that.

goronbjorn2• 14 years ago

This isn't anything new.

Apple has enforced this same restriction on numerous app developers and companies before. The only reason for this being "bigger news" is the pre-existing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, or more likely because of Microsoft's PR team.

smackfu3• 14 years ago

It's also something that most people don't agree with, so every time it happens, it gets a lot of discussion. Maybe eventually Apple will have some solution that doesn't involve getting 30% for doing nothing.

JBiserkov• 14 years ago

Apple is NOT acting in the best interest of its customers. The main reason I got an iPod touch was the ease of updating, combined with the presence of Microsoft software I like and use elsewhere - OneNote, Skype, SkyDrive, Photosynth.

From the article (emphasis mine): "Microsoft has a new version of the application ready, INCLUDING A KEY FIX THAT RECTIFIES A CRASHING BUG, but cannot get it through."

jan_g3• 14 years ago

Yep, that's the reality of app store. Want to push a serious bug fix? Be prepared to wait 2 weeks or more. Could be up to a month, if reviewer decides that your app violates some rule that previous reviewer didn't notice or didn't care about.

pooriaazimi4• 14 years ago

If it's a serious bug, you can request an "Expedited App Review"[1] that can take between hours or a couple days.

If you abuse it though, I think they'll ignore you from that point on :)

[1] https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/i...

mbreese• 14 years ago

The title is incorrect. Apple isn't blocking SkyDrive from the App Store. Microsoft has decided that they didn't want Apple taking a 30% cut of revenue generated from iOS devices. This is a fine distinction. Like it or not, Apple controls their ecosystem, and your choices are to either play by their rules or not play at all. Microsoft decided that they didn't want to play by those rules, so they took their ball and went home.

I can't say that I blame them, but don't make it out like Microsoft is getting any kind of special scrutiny. It is worth noting though that both Dropbox and Box.net have found ways to live within the iOS ecosystem.

NZ_Matt3• 14 years ago

How is the title incorrect? Microsoft have the app waiting for approval, which Apple has blocked.

adrian_pop• 14 years ago

There is a set of rules that Apple is applying to all developers. Why they don't apply to MS ?

dendory• 14 years ago

The fact that Apple even refused when Microsoft offered to simply remove the subscription option from the app, is well.. fucking retarded.

Shame on you, Apple.

NZ_Matt3• 14 years ago

This will have big implications on Microsoft's plans to release Office for iOS in the new year. It has been reported that to use the apps you'll need an Office 365 subscription, obviously purchased from outside the app store. Apple have probably seen this coming and are drawing a line in the sand now.

gurkendoktor2• 14 years ago

Which probably means Apple is not scared of its competition at all. Otherwise they'd be happy to have Office on their tablets...

lominming• 14 years ago

If Apple allows in-app purchases freely, what may happen is that every app is a free app, and the first screen is a screen asking you to buy the paid app. I have already experience a similar experience in some apps like NYT where basically you need in-app subscription. As a user, I felt that I was faked into thinking that it is a free app. On the other hand, it is also crazy for Apple to prevent any sort of in-app upgrades.

chj11• 14 years ago

amazon + MS + dropbox should just bring the case to justice department.

delinka4• 14 years ago

Why? Because there's no competition from the "leading mobile phone OS?" Because you can't get access to these companies' services on other devices? Because Apple has a de facto monopoly?

chj11• 14 years ago

One way to look at: as amazon customer, you can't buy ebook from kindle iOS app. Amazon has a simpler one-click payment system, why should they give 30% (which is almost all they are making) to apple for a inferior service?

nicholassmith3• 14 years ago

In general I think that Apple should be saying to developers, 'we want our 30%' because it's their store, their revenue stream and it's pretty transparent, but when this kicked off with Dropbox I said it then, it's really stupid. If it's a case that they're selling the subscription through the device then fine, take the 30% charge, however if it's a case that the subscription is setup outside of the iOS store, off the device then Apple needs to go "oh well".

EDIT: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It sounds like Microsoft has removed the subs options from their app and resubmitted it to Apple who have yet to approve it, not denied it. It sounds like Microsoft have leaked that they were waiting in some attempt to look like Apple is picking on them.

ghshephard4• 14 years ago

That's the way it works though - I have a subscription to DropBox that I setup outside the iOS store, and I'm pretty certain that Apple didn't get 30% of that subscription fee.

nicholassmith3• 14 years ago

Except, Apple set up an agreement with Dropbox to do that, but apparently they're refusing to let Microsoft do it with Skydrive.

batgaijin• 14 years ago

In all honesty I don't get these arguments. Why does it matter when Apple is fucking Dropbox/Microsoft? Am I supposed to be angry at Apple?

I hate Apple for a lot of reasons, but the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. Why on earth should I extend my empathy like that?

spenvo• 14 years ago

>the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious.

The rules apply to developers of all sizes--not just Microsoft. This is Apple being greedy--which is fine in principle. But as a heavily-invested Apple customer, I "cheer" for the Apple ecosystem (and the company's fair dealings with developers) because I'd like continued priority and investment given to this platform. That's my angle, and Apple seems to be working against it. I find it offensive (as I'm sure many developers do) that Apple claims the right to revenue made from outside of its App ecosystem.

venomsnake• 14 years ago

Allow users to run unsigned code if they so desire. What is the problem. if you want curated store - use it. If you don't want this obtain your software however you desire.

delinka4• 14 years ago

And when Uncle Bob downloads malware, has his bank account drained by unscrupulous developers, takes his phone to a "Genius" to fix the problem, he's going to blame Apple for his trouble.

Let's do the old car analogy: if Mercedes tells you the car requires high octane fuel, but you insist on putting in cheaper fuel, is Mercedes going to repair the resulting damage under warranty? Certainly not.

So Apple decides to create/craft/curate a certain user experience for their customers. And they create rules to enforce it because they don't want to be responsible for their screw-ups (like jailbreaking and installing malware) - if you don't like it, why are you buying Apple's products?

NZ_Matt3• 14 years ago

Perhaps Microsoft should start charging Apple 30% for every song sold on iTunes for Windows.

89a• 14 years ago

How is this a surprise, it's right there in the app store documents.

This is Microsoft complaining they should be except from the rules just because they're big. This is the beauty of the App Store, doesn't matter how big you are you still get treated the same as the little guy

olgeni• 14 years ago

It's the "poor kid that won the lottery" syndrome: doing things just because they can, hoarding cash, making up stupid rules to see how far people will comply, testing developer's patience at each turn, fearing that the miracle machine might eventually run out of steam if they stop sacrificing expansion slots to the almighty gods of dumbed down design.

It is mildly amusing if your livelihood does not depend 100% on them and you still have interesting platforms to work on (not necessarily mobile).

Apple will hopefully grow out of it and become an adult company: less bullshit, less "geniuses" at the bar, less patronizing.

Google, which is supposed to be a competitor, still takes 30% and you still don't even get a search box in the in-app purchases list...

chj11• 14 years ago

at least Google doesn't force you to distribute apps on their store.

mtgx• 14 years ago

Next you'll tell me Microsoft will complain about not being able to put IE10 on iOS. Wouldn't that be ironic?

programminggeek• 14 years ago

Nothing is stopping Microsoft from having a web presence that people use to purchase things at. Apple might be going a bit overboard to force their payment system as the "one true payment system", but it's also a lot better for the average user in most cases, which is what Apple builds for. They don't support many corner cases. Android does. Nobody is forcing you to have an app on iOS right?

Also, the process for setting up a dev account on Apple is far more pleasant than for the Windows 8 store. Also, Microsoft won't even let you publish Metro apps outside of the MSFT store, so who are they to complain about vendor lock in or requiring a cut of purchases and such?

JimmaDaRustla• 14 years ago

Hate it, but can see why its happening.

What if Apple offered the purchasing of services THROUGH their app store? Then there is this clear understanding that Apple made the sale and they actually had to play a part in the transaction. I still would think 30% would be too much, maybe 15-20.

delinka4• 14 years ago

"Rebuffed"? I suspect it was more like "ignored." Because Apple won't negotiate on the rules. It's their playground, and the rules are posted plainly.

So you submitted an app (or an update to one) with a feature not allowed by Apple and got rejected. Now, you remove the offending functionality and resubmit ... and they'll get to you when they're good-n-ready. And they'll take their dear sweet time because we can't have you overlooking the rules again (or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewer...)

So why doesn't Microsoft just market the hell out of SkyDrive?

"Use it. Love it. Sign up at skydrive.live.com. And now, access your SkyDrive subscription on your favorite mobile devices: Windows, Android and iOS."

Don't try to sell SkyDrive on Apple's App Store, just provide "free access" to the subscription. Plenty other services do exactly this.

robomartin• 14 years ago

In most of these discussions there's a question about the fairness of Apple's 30% cut. Are they charging too much?

Most might just look at the cost of a credit card transaction (~3%) and think that 30% is just crazy. That, of course, is the wrong way to look at it. The act of selling a product costs far more than the credit card processing fees. This is particularly true for physical products that you have to store and ship.

The best comparison I can make is to take a look at having Amazon sell your product. Here are the fees:

http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm

In very rough strokes, fees range from about 5% to 50% of the transaction total, depending on the cost and nature of the items sold.

Clearly Apple could charge a lot less for higher valued items. Right? The flat 30% cut starts to become excessive at some point. If I understand Amazon's pricing for selling your software product the two services compare as follows (assuming no shipping, only downloads):

     price   Apple  Amazon    % of Amazon take
      1.00    0.30    2.49    249%
      5.00    1.50    3.09     62%
     10.00    3.00    3.84     38%
     15.00    4.50    4.59     31%
     20.00    6.00    5.34     27%
     25.00    7.50    6.09     24%
     30.00    9.00    6.84     23%
     35.00   10.50    7.59     22%
     40.00   12.00    8.34     21%
     45.00   13.50    9.09     20%
     50.00   15.00    9.84     20%
     75.00   22.50   13.59     18%
    100.00   30.00   17.34     17%

In this possibly contrived comparison it'd cost about the same to sell your product through Amazon up to about $15 to $20. After that Amazon charges you less. For low price items Apple is ridiculously cheap.

Can you do better if you handle your own transactions, fulfillment, hosting, customer service, fraud/loss prevention, etc. Possibly. It certainly doesn't get down to the raw ~3% you pay for CC transactions. My guess is that a highly optimized operation might be able to achieve 5% to 25% depending on the nature of the product and sale price. Clearly selling items below about $10 requires a highly optimized operation with huge volume or your are going to loose your shirt --and more-- no matter how you approach it (keep that in mind when selling something for a buck on eBay).

Apple blocking SkyDrive from iOS store, wants cut of revenue

Related Stories