What Apple would gain from it's 30% would take a long time to make up for a few tens of thousand defectors to surface, or Android, because Office is not there. (And tens of thousands is low balling.)
Same with the Kindle Fire, people who prefer their Kindle app experience to have an integrated purchasing facility within the app, might defect to the Fire. A few tens of thousands of defectors ( again, low balling) and Apple loses a few hundred euro each, it needs to sell millions of e-books to make it up. iBooks wasn't worth pissing off Amazon.
You're acting as though Office matters in any meaningful capacity.
If MSFT removes all links to purchase additional storage or anything else from the app and Apple refuses the app because it is possible to buy storage from outside the app and MSFT isn't making it available inside the app Apple is changing the rules in midstream and is totally in the wrong....
Something we can all agree on?
If MSFT is continuing to push for links to purchase the upgrades outside of in app purchases inside of the app then the app should be rejected unless or until MSFT enables the ability to make the purchases in-app...
Something we can all agree on?
If the answer is yes to both like I think it should be from reasonable people then we need more information. If the answer is no to either, is there an objective reason to come to that conclusion?
Your comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the 'Apple Business Model' is outstanding!
You guys are all arguing about busines model here. It's _not_ the problem.
MS's business model has proven to be the best model for 25 years (at least). It doesn't make it a moral, sane, or even legal model, as have proven the numerous suits they lost (against the US government, against companies, against the EU...)
The question is simple: is it fair that to offer their customers the best possible coverage (as in "offer an iPad app"), companies that already would sell their product if such app wasn't there need to pay a 30% tax to Apple? Obviously, it's not in the interest of anyone but Apple, just as MS's model is only in the interest of MS. As it should, since companies are, after all, no non-profit organizations...
Bottom line of my argument: yes, Apple's trying to get as much $$$ as they can from their iPad's success, and no, governments shouldn't let that go unchecked. That's precisely one of the things governments are for, preventing abuse of power by money-hungry corporations, in the interest of the voter, who also happens to be a consumer.
Addendum about my feelings on the 30%:
The question here is: can X develop an app that does the same thing as an Appstore app without going through the AppStore? Anyone who's done web-apps knows the answer: unless your app is pretty simple, native code wins every time. It so happens that native code necessarily installs through the AppStore.
The _only_ way that Apple's 30% tax would be acceptable is if Apple stopped demanding that native code executing on the iPad has to be distributed through the AppStore. That's the only choice: open up, or cease the tax. It's pretty clear that unless the government steps in (and in the case of MS, it took the government a mere 15 years to step in, and close to 20 years to actually achieve a result), Apple's only going to change something if their sales o down, which won't happen, because apart from having horrible policies, they do make stupendous hardware. Maybe in 2028?
The dispute between Microsoft and Apple has serious consequences for App developers who publish 'free' apps in the App Store, only to then charge users to activate the app or to upgrade to a version with better functionality.
As Microsoft seems to be at odds with Apple's stance that all in-app purchases should require a 30% payment to Apple (in perpetuity), will this force app developers to develop HTML5 web apps to by-pass app stores?
The dispute between Microsoft and Apple has serious consequences for App developers who publish 'free' apps in the App Store, only to then charge users to activate the app or to upgrade to a version with better functionality.
As Microsoft seems to be at odds with Apple's stance that all in-app purchases should require a 30% payment to Apple (in perpetuity), will this force app developers to develop HTML5 web apps to by-pass app stores?
Comments
Originally Posted by asdasd
What Apple would gain from it's 30% would take a long time to make up for a few tens of thousand defectors to surface, or Android, because Office is not there. (And tens of thousands is low balling.)
Same with the Kindle Fire, people who prefer their Kindle app experience to have an integrated purchasing facility within the app, might defect to the Fire. A few tens of thousands of defectors ( again, low balling) and Apple loses a few hundred euro each, it needs to sell millions of e-books to make it up. iBooks wasn't worth pissing off Amazon.
You're acting as though Office matters in any meaningful capacity.
If MSFT removes all links to purchase additional storage or anything else from the app and Apple refuses the app because it is possible to buy storage from outside the app and MSFT isn't making it available inside the app Apple is changing the rules in midstream and is totally in the wrong....
Something we can all agree on?
If MSFT is continuing to push for links to purchase the upgrades outside of in app purchases inside of the app then the app should be rejected unless or until MSFT enables the ability to make the purchases in-app...
Something we can all agree on?
If the answer is yes to both like I think it should be from reasonable people then we need more information. If the answer is no to either, is there an objective reason to come to that conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzExige
Yeah OK
Thank you
President Reagan
Your comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the 'Apple Business Model' is outstanding!
You guys are all arguing about busines model here. It's _not_ the problem.
MS's business model has proven to be the best model for 25 years (at least). It doesn't make it a moral, sane, or even legal model, as have proven the numerous suits they lost (against the US government, against companies, against the EU...)
The question is simple: is it fair that to offer their customers the best possible coverage (as in "offer an iPad app"), companies that already would sell their product if such app wasn't there need to pay a 30% tax to Apple? Obviously, it's not in the interest of anyone but Apple, just as MS's model is only in the interest of MS. As it should, since companies are, after all, no non-profit organizations...
Bottom line of my argument: yes, Apple's trying to get as much $$$ as they can from their iPad's success, and no, governments shouldn't let that go unchecked. That's precisely one of the things governments are for, preventing abuse of power by money-hungry corporations, in the interest of the voter, who also happens to be a consumer.
Addendum about my feelings on the 30%:
The question here is: can X develop an app that does the same thing as an Appstore app without going through the AppStore? Anyone who's done web-apps knows the answer: unless your app is pretty simple, native code wins every time. It so happens that native code necessarily installs through the AppStore.
The _only_ way that Apple's 30% tax would be acceptable is if Apple stopped demanding that native code executing on the iPad has to be distributed through the AppStore. That's the only choice: open up, or cease the tax. It's pretty clear that unless the government steps in (and in the case of MS, it took the government a mere 15 years to step in, and close to 20 years to actually achieve a result), Apple's only going to change something if their sales o down, which won't happen, because apart from having horrible policies, they do make stupendous hardware. Maybe in 2028?
The dispute between Microsoft and Apple has serious consequences for App developers who publish 'free' apps in the App Store, only to then charge users to activate the app or to upgrade to a version with better functionality.
As Microsoft seems to be at odds with Apple's stance that all in-app purchases should require a 30% payment to Apple (in perpetuity), will this force app developers to develop HTML5 web apps to by-pass app stores?
The dispute between Microsoft and Apple has serious consequences for App developers who publish 'free' apps in the App Store, only to then charge users to activate the app or to upgrade to a version with better functionality.
As Microsoft seems to be at odds with Apple's stance that all in-app purchases should require a 30% payment to Apple (in perpetuity), will this force app developers to develop HTML5 web apps to by-pass app stores?
This blog article looks at this in more detail: http://tinyurl.com/awgmapw