or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple and Microsoft at odds over SkyDrive app subscription fees [ux2]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple and Microsoft at odds over SkyDrive app subscription fees [ux2]

post #1 of 100
Thread Starter 
Microsoft and Apple are reportedly engaged in a behind-the-scenes dispute over Apple's 30 percent cut of sales through iOS applications, as well as the ability to sign up for the SkyDrive service [updated with comment from Microsoft].

The issue has specifically been raised with Microsoft's SkyDrive application for iOS, according to unnamed sources who spoke with The Next Web. The spat reportedly began when Microsoft updated the SkyDrive service to allow users to purchase more storage space, at which point Apple began blocking updates to the iOS application.

Microsoft is said to have a new version of the iOS SkyDrive application completed, complete with bug fixes. But Apple will not approve the software because Microsoft's application does not pay Apple a 30 percent cut of subscription revenue generated from buying additional storage.

"Microsoft does not appear keen to pay Apple the 30% cut, as it lasts in perpetuity, regardless of whether a user continues to use an iOS device or not, as the billing is through their Apple account," author Alex Wilhelm explained.

Update: Microsoft has confirmed that it has seen a "delay in approval" of the updated version of SkyDrive for iOS. The company hopes it will be able to resolve the matter with Apple. The full statement from Microsoft:

"Similar to the experiences of some other companies, we are experiencing a delay in approval of our updated SkyDrive for iOS. We are in contact with Apple regarding the matter and hope to come to a resolution. We will provide additional information as it becomes available."



Microsoft reportedly offered to remove paid subscription options from its SkyDrive application to comply with Apple's rules. But Apple felt that move wasn't enough, as users can still sign up for the SkyDrive service through the application.

SkyDrive


And Apple's blocking has allegedly gone further than just Microsoft: The company is also barring third-party applications that interact with SkyDrive because Microsoft isn't paying a 30 percent cut. One such example is the application "Files Pro," which was rejected because it includes a "Sign Up" button for Microsoft's Live login.

The SkyDrive mobile application for iOS launched in the App Store last December. The service competes with Apple's iCloud, offering unique features like collaborative document editing, note sharing, and cross-platform accessibility.

Update 2: AllThingsD is now reporting that inside sources say the issue is connected to Microsoft's upcoming Office 365 for iOS, not just SkyDrive. The argument is said to over subscription fees as Microsoft's Office 365 is a service that allows access to a suite of apps, SkyDrive included. If the publication's sources are correct, Apple is pushing for a 30 percent cut of subscriptions garnered from iOS users.
post #2 of 100
This is a tough one. I am all for Apple running 'its' store the way it sees fit but it's also ridiculous to expect that one pay 30% of the Skydrive storage costs forever just for first doing it via an iOS device.

If I were MS the best and easiest option seems to just make a link that opens up in Safari with a secure token as an address so the user doesn't have to sign in to complete the purchase.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 100

Lol, Apple will make 10 times more money from Office than from iWork.

 

Brilliant move, eating Microsoft's only cash cow (in 2 years). Since Windows 8 is such a gigantic failure (especially surface and windows phones) already and iOS keeps growing and getting stronger, Microsoft has no option.

 

I just hope Microsoft doesn't try to get some vengeance on the mac-side of things.

post #4 of 100
Microsoft Software on IOS ? Sorry, I am not interested
post #5 of 100

I wonder if this would push MS so far as to pull their Office apps from iOS completely?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 100
I think the reason Apple do this is because you use their payment system with iOS apps app or use your own... not through App Store apps. Id say they're avoiding lawsuits from the "hey let start a class action against Apple" crowd for things that they have no control over. Its a good idea imo. You can just buy more storage through Safari or a desktop
post #7 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is a tough one. I am all for Apple running 'its' store the way it sees fit but it's also ridiculous to expect that one pay 30% of the Skydrive storage costs forever just for first doing it via an iOS device.
If I were MS the best and easiest option seems to just make a link that opens up in Safari with a secure token as an address so the user doesn't have to sign in to complete the purchase.

Apple needs to back off a little here, I think. There are work arounds (as you suggest above, for instance), but work arounds are never ideal. Apple needs to reconsider subscriptions to multi platform services. Anyone know what others (Android, MS) do?

post #8 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wonder if this would push MS so far as to pull their Office apps from iOS completely?

Can they afford to do that? I don't see how. Between Microsoft and irrelevance, is Office. They can't screw it.

post #9 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is a tough one. I am all for Apple running 'its' store the way it sees fit but it's also ridiculous to expect that one pay 30% of the Skydrive storage costs forever just for first doing it via an iOS device.
If I were MS the best and easiest option seems to just make a link that opens up in Safari with a secure token as an address so the user doesn't have to sign in to complete the purchase.

 

 

It isn't very tough. Apple's policy is simple. If Apple's helps you sell something for actual money, it wants a 30 percent cut. It brought you a customer. Apple's gauge of whether it is helping somebody sell something is if the party offers a pay option through its iOS app. Apple also does not want developers to permanently advertise on their iOS apps that they can purchase something through another means by doing as you suggest offer a link that opens else place. Apple will not approve the app with such a link. 

 

Apple's view is we let developers host apps in our App Store and don't charge them anything to do it UNLESS they make money from being on the App Store. Apple excludes advertising money. Developers keep all of that. 

 

If Microsoft removes the in app upgrade and any in app links to where people can get more storage, this will only effect people who know about the options for additional storage through Apple. People who already used Skydrive aren't hurt at all. So, Apple's practice is fair.

 

This is the same way Apple treats companies like Netflix and Amazon. Neither Netflix or Amazon offer in app purchases for this reason. 

post #10 of 100
"I wonder if this would push MS so far as to pull their Office apps from iOS completely?"

there is no office apps for ios for now.


-
"I just hope Microsoft doesn't try to get some vengeance on the mac-side of things."

Microsoft is soon free of their partnership with Apple for Office on Mac.

They may decide to renew it or to stop, we don't know.
post #11 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

Microsoft Software on IOS ? Sorry, I am not interested

I much prefer Dropbox with my free 15.25GB but SkyDrive has plenty pluses. It's certainly better than iCloud insofar that it will connect to other users. Plus, they are likely using Xcode to build the app so it's probably not as bad as MS apps on the Mac where they can easily go against the accepted model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wonder if this would push MS so far as to pull their Office apps from iOS completely?

I doubt it. They'll have to charge up front for Office apps, Apple will get their 30%, and Office will be likely be the profitable suite of apps in record time. MS would lose more than MS would. Now, if WP8 was popular I think it would be a different story.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 100
Microsoft should just give Apple the 30% but just charged iOS users 30% more for their subscription. They can just put the 30% Apple Tax on the checkout page
post #13 of 100

Where this gets interesting is Microsoft is allegedly going to bring iOS versions of Office  to the App Store. It is supposedly going to be a subscription model where the App will be free. The features will only allow you to see Office docs. To edit and save, you will need an in app purchase. 

post #14 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Microsoft should just give Apple the 30% but just charged iOS users 30% more for their subscription. They can just put the 30% Apple Tax on the checkout page

 

 

Yes, except it should be referred to as the retail tax. Walmart doesn't let you sell stuff in it's stores without a share of the profit. Not sure why Apple would be expected to do less. It does actually cost Apple money to host, distribute, and process payments for the apps. 

post #15 of 100
I use SkyDrive on a Mac and very limited on a iPad. I would rather use a html interface than the app since it quite simply better than the app.
post #16 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is a tough one. I am all for Apple running 'its' store the way it sees fit but it's also ridiculous to expect that one pay 30% of the Skydrive storage costs forever just for first doing it via an iOS device.
If I were MS the best and easiest option seems to just make a link that opens up in Safari with a secure token as an address so the user doesn't have to sign in to complete the purchase.

 

I thought so at first too, but I'm glad I didn't make the first post on this myself and had time to think about it because if you really do think about it, why would it be any other way?  Apple runs a cloud service itself, why would they allow an app that drives subscriptions towards a competing product?  

 

If you already have a DropBox account or a SkyDrive account then of course an iOS app should be available to help you access it.  

 

Actively supporting these alternatives with apps that drive business to them instead of to iCloud is a really bad idea.  

 

Remember iCloud is better for the end users too.  I find it weird how many techies and developers seem to purposely forget this.  

The end user is far better served with an integrated easy to use cloud system like iCloud that's provided by the device/software creator than they are by the alternatives. The alternatives should be .... well, alternatives.  Alternatives that the user has to seek out and use only if they need to.  


Edited by Gazoobee - 12/11/12 at 7:24am
post #17 of 100
Photosynth from MS for iOS ios best thing they have done. try it
post #18 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post

Photosynth from MS for iOS ios best thing they have done. try it

 

 

I agree. That is a nice app.

post #19 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

Microsoft should just give Apple the 30% but just charged iOS users 30% more for their subscription. They can just put the 30% Apple Tax on the checkout page


No they can't. That's the core issue with Apple's system. If they sell this, it has to be "at the same price including 30% tax". That's why it's a monopolistic issue.

 

You want in onto the iOS platform, you have to pay 30% to Apple on anything (subscription or virtual goods) sold through your app. I expect this to be stricken down by courts in a few years, when something better from another company is at last here and the problem is not relevant anymore, like IE6 for Windows...

 

As for now, the best thing there is comes from Apple, since competition is either not innovative (Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung) or bad at marketing towards non-geeks (Google) or too small to afford the huge IP fees involved in modern IT (anyone else). It's my sadness that we won't see any new Apple coming due to the system encouraging bigger players to not-innovate, but well, I guess we voters collectively chose to maintain the situation, did not we?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #20 of 100
Microsoft is very mean
post #21 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I thought so at first too, but I'm glad I didn't make the first post on this myself and had time to think about it because if you really do think about it, why would it be any other way?  Apple runs a cloud service itself, why would they allow an app that drives subscriptions towards a competing product?  

If you already have a DropBox account or a SkyDrive account then of course an iOS app should be available to help you access it.  

Actively supporting these alternatives with apps that drive business to them instead of to iCloud is a really bad idea.  

Remember iCloud is better for the end users too.  I find it weird how many techies and developers seem to purposely forget this.  
The end user is far better served with an integrated easy to use cloud system like iCloud that's provided by the device/software creator than they are by the alternatives. The alternatives should be .... well, alternatives.  Alternatives that the user has to seek out and use only if they need to.  

Put a Word doc from work into iCloud and get back to me.

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
post #22 of 100
These are old rules. And I for one am pleased as punch that Apple is enforcing them across the board. If I as an indie developer have to pay them 30% of my IAP subscription, I can't put in a link to paying directly online etc then MS should have to do the same.

So really the headline should read 'Microsoft throwing tantrum because Apple is making them play by the same rules as everyone else'

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #23 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is a tough one. I am all for Apple running 'its' store the way it sees fit but it's also ridiculous to expect that one pay 30% of the Skydrive storage costs forever just for first doing it via an iOS device.
If I were MS the best and easiest option seems to just make a link that opens up in Safari with a secure token as an address so the user doesn't have to sign in to complete the purchase.

 

I believe the link strategy is forbidden in the developer agreement.

 

And, it's completely reasonable that Apple expects 30% of the money Microsoft generates from the app. That's how it works for everyone and there's no reason Microsoft should get a special deal, and they agreed to the 30% when they signed the developer agreement. I don't see how this is a tough one at all. It's entirely straightforward and as simple as it gets.

post #24 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post


Put a Word doc from work into iCloud and get back to me.

 

It would take approximately ten seconds to open said doc in Pages and send it to the cloud.  You could also open it it Textedit if you didn't want to buy Pages and do the same thing.  

 

Besides which, I was specifically talking about the average consumer or customer of Apple products, and framed my remarks that way.  

Your scenario is fairly distant from that.  

post #25 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


It isn't very tough. Apple's policy is simple. If Apple's helps you sell something for actual money, it wants a 30 percent cut. It brought you a customer. Apple's gauge of whether it is helping somebody sell something is if the party offers a pay option through its iOS app. Apple also does not want developers to permanently advertise on their iOS apps that they can purchase something through another means by doing as you suggest offer a link that opens else place. Apple will not approve the app with such a link. 

Apple's view is we let developers host apps in our App Store and don't charge them anything to do it UNLESS they make money from being on the App Store. Apple excludes advertising money. Developers keep all of that. 

If Microsoft removes the in app upgrade and any in app links to where people can get more storage, this will only effect people who know about the options for additional storage through Apple. People who already used Skydrive aren't hurt at all. So, Apple's practice is fair.

This is the same way Apple treats companies like Netflix and Amazon. Neither Netflix or Amazon offer in app purchases for this reason. 

I agree with you on this. Microsoft knew the rules going in.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #26 of 100
Why is this so complicated? Why should Microsoft be treated any different than the rest of us? All developers should be treated the same when it comes to this. You can't tell me that Microsoft did not know the policy when they decided to develop the software. Microsoft is not that stupid.
rfrmac
Reply
rfrmac
Reply
post #27 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


No they can't. That's the core issue with Apple's system. If they sell this, it has to be "at the same price including 30% tax". That's why it's a monopolistic issue.

 

...

 

Total nonsense.  

post #28 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes, except it should be referred to as the retail tax. Walmart doesn't let you sell stuff in it's stores without a share of the profit. Not sure why Apple would be expected to do less. It does actually cost Apple money to host, distribute, and process payments for the apps. 

1) Seem to be an awful lot of free apps... I guess we would call them the moocher apps in todays parlance.

2) Aside from that fact that lots of retails sell items at a loss to get traffic into the store, to be more relevant, Wal-Mart sells phones too. As far as I know, they don’t collect a fee on the phone subscription for the life of the phone... or do they?

As usual, agree with Soli on this, seems way overkill. And far as I know, most subscription vendors don’t put up with. Which in the end is more a loss to Apple customers, not Apple.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #29 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

1) Seem to be an awful lot of free apps... I guess we would call them the moocher apps in todays parlance.

2) Aside from that fact that lots of retails sell items at a loss to get traffic into the store, to be more relevant, Wal-Mart sells phones too. As far as I know, they don’t collect a fee on the phone subscription for the life of the phone... or do they?

As usual, agree with Soli on this, seems way overkill. And far as I know, most subscription vendors don’t put up with. Which in the end is more a loss to Apple customers, not Apple.

 

The free apps don't generate revenue, Apple still gets 30% of nothing.

 

Microsoft knew the rules, and they should play by the same rules as everyone else.

post #30 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


No they can't. That's the core issue with Apple's system. If they sell this, it has to be "at the same price including 30% tax". That's why it's a monopolistic issue.

 

You want in onto the iOS platform, you have to pay 30% to Apple on anything (subscription or virtual goods) sold through your app. I expect this to be stricken down by courts in a few years, when something better from another company is at last here and the problem is not relevant anymore, like IE6 for Windows...

 

As for now, the best thing there is comes from Apple, since competition is either not innovative (Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung) or bad at marketing towards non-geeks (Google) or too small to afford the huge IP fees involved in modern IT (anyone else). It's my sadness that we won't see any new Apple coming due to the system encouraging bigger players to not-innovate, but well, I guess we voters collectively chose to maintain the situation, did not we?

 

This is key... in most products... it's the manufacturer that defines the 'lowest price' -  With Apple, it's the retailer.   It would be the same as Walmart saying that coke can't sell their products for a lower price than Walmart's current price.    Apples argument is they are not a 'store' but a 'restaurant' where they 'serve' food and liquor to their patrons, and each iOS device is a 'table.'  And within the confines of the restaurant,   Coke is forbidden tell the customer to leave the restaurant, buy their product from the street vendor outside, and then bring it back to their table and have it with the rest of their meal (this makes a lot more sense in the 'app' sales mode, than 'in-app' sales mode, but bear with me), unless the price is the same as on Apple's Menu.

 

It's the old Cathedral/Bazaar argument, only in this cathedral, the price a prayer candle can't be less than in the mosque or the synagogue, or at the factory outlet store.

 

This sort of gets back to the iOS issue:  are we buying a device, and stuff to put on the device, or are we 'leasing' an experience (both the  customer and the app supplier), and Apple is the 'market maker' and has strict requirements to eliminate 'side agreements' outside the master lease(s).

 

I'm not happy about it.  Buying on your iOS device is for easy 'convenience' and I paid for that once... and I do think it's part of the reason that Apple is not backing NFC, and pushing people to passport, as the long game makes your iTunes account the money account.

 

OTOH, in the ad free world of Apple, they want to make their money without resorting to crapware or in OS ads.   And if money changes hands, then that is a logical place for Apple to get their 'taste'    I do think 30% is too much for in-app purchases (really, shouldn't it be about storage and bandwidth).  Why not 15% for purely money handling with a 'floor' value of $0.30 (30% of a .99 purchase for less than 100K of 'data', and a Cert is usually less than that)).  If you move bits/bytes (100K+), it's 30% of the market value.

post #31 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

... I do think 30% is too much for in-app purchases (really, shouldn't it be about storage and bandwidth).  Why not 15% for purely money handling with a 'floor' value of $0.30 (30% of a .99 purchase for less than 100K of 'data', and a Cert is usually less than that)).  If you move bits/bytes (100K+), it's 30% of the market value.

 

Really?! Do we have to revisit this nonsense?

 

Under your scenario, let's say you are a developer, maybe a game developer. Now, if you sell your game in the App Store®, you pay 30% to Apple. But, if you give your "game" away for free, with, say 1 level, and allow the player to "unlock" the rest of the game using In-App Purchase, you only pay 15% to Apple. Which do you think developers are going to do?

 

Obviously, they're going to game the system and pay the 15%. Setting a different cost for initial vs. in-app revenue would very quickly shift all the revenue to in-app. That would be pretty stupid on Apple's part.

 

And, the cost has nothing to do with moving bits, so that doesn't even belong in the discussion, it's a complete red herring.

post #32 of 100
I think something will be worked out on this eventually. It makes sense for Apple to block sales the circumvent their system. It keeps customers from being gouged by app makers who circumvent the store to charge prices for crazy things, and keeps devs from working around Apple to cut Apple out of revenue while they're hosting and advertising the app. However in a case like this, it wouldn't make sense to me either if I was MS, to have each year's subscription renewal cut by 30%.

So I think they'll work out a compromise and that will filter down to Apple's policies for all developers and things will be better for it in the end. It just hasn't really come up before (that I'm aware of) with something as big as say SkyDrive or possible the new Office for iOS apps. Will be interesting to see what follows and what gets worked out!
post #33 of 100

If Microsoft removes in-app purchased and doesnt provide a link to a web page for additional storage, then Apple should approuve it.  Its the kindle app debate all over again.  imo Apple is abusing its position if it still doesnt approuve the app, not to mention its going against its own rules.

post #34 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post

Put a Word doc from work into iCloud and get back to me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

It would take approximately ten seconds to open said doc in Pages and send it to the cloud.  You could also open it it Textedit if you didn't want to buy Pages and do the same thing.  

 

Besides which, I was specifically talking about the average consumer or customer of Apple products, and framed my remarks that way.  

Your scenario is fairly distant from that.  

 

 


The operative words in LarryA's post were "from work." As in sitting at a company-licensed Windows/Office workstation, working on a document in Microsoft Word. Collaborating on that document via iCloud is not possible.
 
I don't think it's fair to say that one approach to online storage is better than the other overall. They each have strengths the other lacks. SkyDrive offers the ability to collaborate, iCloud offers virtually invisible storage and backup integrated nicely into the OS making it easy for those who don't need anything else.
post #35 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Really?! Do we have to revisit this nonsense?

 

Under your scenario, let's say you are a developer, maybe a game developer. Now, if you sell your game in the App Store®, you pay 30% to Apple. But, if you give your "game" away for free, with, say 1 level, and allow the player to "unlock" the rest of the game using In-App Purchase, you only pay 15% to Apple. Which do you think developers are going to do?

 

Obviously, they're going to game the system and pay the 15%. Setting a different cost for initial vs. in-app revenue would very quickly shift all the revenue to in-app. That would be pretty stupid on Apple's part.

 

And, the cost has nothing to do with moving bits, so that doesn't even belong in the discussion, it's a complete red herring.

 

err, those billion dollar datacenters are all about moving bits (and moving the bits to entice you to move the bits).  Apple has to recoup the cost of those systems.

 

but you're right, the discussion about how to 'fix' inapp purchases shouldn't be here.  It's really all about the contractual requirement to lock prices across all e-retailers, which I find is anti-competitive.   One way is to fudge the pricing based on the 'size' of the transaction, which was really my point (bits and bytes), and a bad one at that.

 

The issue isn't 'stupidity' of Apple (their model is very smart, as their profits rise dramatically from a .99 to a $19.99 purchase), it's the agreement to fix the price everywhere to Apple's price, which again, is smart on Apple's part, but on the surface, it seems like it's using it's monopoly to fix prices to it's model.

post #36 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinthor View Post

I think something will be worked out on this eventually. It makes sense for Apple to block sales the circumvent their system. It keeps customers from being gouged by app makers who circumvent the store to charge prices for crazy things, and keeps devs from working around Apple to cut Apple out of revenue while they're hosting and advertising the app. However in a case like this, it wouldn't make sense to me either if I was MS, to have each year's subscription renewal cut by 30%.
So I think they'll work out a compromise and that will filter down to Apple's policies for all developers and things will be better for it in the end. It just hasn't really come up before (that I'm aware of) with something as big as say SkyDrive or possible the new Office for iOS apps. Will be interesting to see what follows and what gets worked out!

It's really the issue for 'big e-comm players' who have a payment infrastructure in place (for small app developers who don't Apple's pricing is inline), It's cheaper for them to direct them to their own payment system, but then Apple is providing the hungry client, 'table' and the 'security' but not making anything on the sale of the food.    

post #37 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

1) Seem to be an awful lot of free apps... I guess we would call them the moocher apps in todays parlance.

2) Aside from that fact that lots of retails sell items at a loss to get traffic into the store, to be more relevant, Wal-Mart sells phones too. As far as I know, they don’t collect a fee on the phone subscription for the life of the phone... or do they?

As usual, agree with Soli on this, seems way overkill. And far as I know, most subscription vendors don’t put up with. Which in the end is more a loss to Apple customers, not Apple.

 

 

I am the first one to acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ on views, but I am not sure where you are coming from. Stores like Walmart have loss leaders to get people to come into the store to buy other things. Apple allowing free Apps is akin to a loss leader at store like Walmart. As far as subscriptions go, Walmart does make money off the sale of the phone, and either a cut of the monthly cellular service or a flat fee. Companies want their products to be sold in Walmart, and for that reason Walmart has quite a bit of leverage. It also works that way in the insurance industry. When you renew an insurance policy, the original sales person gets a cut of the renewal fees until the person cancels the service. 

 

People sometimes like to think of Apple as a charity. If Apple brings Microsoft the customer, Apple gets a cut of the sale. Users of Sky drive can go to Microsoft directly and buy additional storage. Microsoft just can't advertise that through a link built into the app. I don't hear Netflix, Drop Box, or even Amazon raising a fuss and their apps are all on the App Store. Moreover, Apple doesn't get a cut forever. It only gets a cut if people renew through Apple. 

 

Moreover, I don't feel sorry for Microsoft. I own an X-Box, which cost hundreds of dollars. I can't access Netflix, Hulu Plus, or just about any Media Content without paying Microsoft a yearly subscription fee. Keep in mind, it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to host those apps, which makes its platform more valuable. Apple on the other hand, through its Apple TV and other products doesn't charge users anything to have access to those media products.

post #38 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

If Microsoft removes in-app purchased and doesnt provide a link to a web page for additional storage, then Apple should approuve it.  Its the kindle app debate all over again.  imo Apple is abusing its position if it still doesnt approuve the app, not to mention its going against its own rules.

 

Why wouldn't Apple approve the app then? It already has approved it before. It is sitting on my phone (not being used). What we really need to talk about is Apple removing the excellent iKamasutra App from the App Store. 

post #39 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

 

 


The operative words in LarryA's post were "from work." As in sitting at a company-licensed Windows/Office workstation, working on a document in Microsoft Word. Collaborating on that document via iCloud is not possible.
 
I don't think it's fair to say that one approach to online storage is better than the other overall. They each have strengths the other lacks. SkyDrive offers the ability to collaborate, iCloud offers virtually invisible storage and backup integrated nicely into the OS making it easy for those who don't need anything else.

You've changed the argument to "collaborating on that document" from "using a cloud service" but even then, it's still possible to do this.  I do it all the time, so do many people I work with.  The only time it becomes impossible is in a deeply corporate environment that's locked down to using only Microsoft products.  

 

In any case, the whole point is that I'm claiming that iCloud is better for the "average user" though.  That's my original statement and I've re-stated it in every single reply.  It's still true. 

 

This example, like all the others is a small, edge case of business-only users.  For the average user, iCloud is still far better.  It's more integrated, it's easier to manage, it's mostly invisible and requires no user input.  It has greater protection against intrusions from the state or from your boss at work.  It's simply better for the average end user in almost every way.  

 

People can whine about bizarre business related situations (which only exist because of Microsoft's unconscionable product "lock-in"), but for the average user and for most users, iCloud is a far better/safer/easier option.  For all it's faults, Pages is a better Word processor for the average user also.  

post #40 of 100
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post
[...]

I just hope Microsoft doesn't try to get some vengeance on the mac-side of things.

 

It's possible.  But it wouldn't hurt Apple much.  Sure, there are many Office for Mac users out there.

But there are vastly more Mac users who don't run Office.  They'd never know the difference if

Microsoft did something stupid, like freezing Office for Mac at the current release.

 

And if Apple really wanted to, they could spend a tiny fraction of their $120 billion cash hoard

on upgrading Pages to be a true Word replacement.  They're constantly tweaking its Word

document compatibility, and we all know that Apple's user experience designers are vastly

superior to Microsoft's.  (It's possible that Microsoft doesn't even have UX designers, judging

by their recent desktop and mobile efforts.)

 

Actually, Apple may be planning to forge ahead on upgrading iWork as a replacement for Office

no matter what Microsoft does.  Why?  Because Apple can and will switch their consumer Macs,

starting with the MacBook Air, from Intel chips to ARM-based custom-designed AX chips.

 

The cost savings alone would be worth the effort: $1000 for the top quad-core Core i7 chip,

$17.50 for the top duo-core A6X chip.  Let's say that Apple rolls out a quad-core 64-bit A7 SoC

in 2014.  (The 64-bit ARMv8 instruction set was published a year ago, so it's quite likely that

Apple will go 64-bit ASAP.)  And let's say that the quad-core 64-bit A7 costs Apple $50, or

about three times as much as the current duo-core 32-bit A6X.  Still a huge savings over

the off-the-shelf price for the Intel chips.  Apple is still a low-volume customer, so they pay

boutique prices.  Using their own low-cost, highly efficient AX chips in MacBook Air would

be a huge win in terms of retail price, profit margin, and battery life.

 

And how many years would it take Microsoft to migrate their OS X / Intel version of Office

to OS X / ARM?  Maybe a year at the bare minimum (before it's usable.)  Apple now has

about a year and a half before the quad-core 64-bit ARM chips could be available.  Plenty of time to

upgrade iWork and to prepare it to run on OS X / ARM Macs.  And iWork will have maybe a year 

of exclusivity on OS X / ARM.  Definitely worth the effort, and frankly it wouldn't be a very

expensive project.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple and Microsoft at odds over SkyDrive app subscription fees [ux2]