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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 105
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    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.  

  • Reply 42 of 105


    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.

  • Reply 43 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


     


    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.



     


    I think you are very confused. Much of your post seems to lack all understanding both of the post you are replying to, and the App Store business model.


     


    But, since you continue to push this red herring about bits, let's harpoon that fish for good and all...


     


    What you pay Apple to offer your app in the App Store has absolutely nothing to do with its size, the amount of data served to customers installing it or unlocking a feature, or anything even remotely related to bits. Did you understand that last sentence? If not, or if you still somehow think it's related to serving bits, keep reading the first sentence of this paragraph until it sinks in. This is not a point of argument, so don't bother trying to make an argument that it does have to do with bits served. It just doesn't, and that's an immutable fact, not a point up for debate.


     


    Now, are you grounded in reality, or do you still have thoughts about App Store costs being related to bits served. If the latter, jump back to the previous paragraph. If you now understand that it's an indisputable fact, not an opinion, or point for debate, that the money you pay Apple has nothing to do with bits served, you can continue reading. Otherwise, keep rereading the preceding paragraph and this until it sinks in.


     


    What you pay Apple to offer your app in the App Store is a 30% share of the revenue your app generates. Yes, that's right, the App Store does not operate on a cost of services model. The App Store operates on a revenue sharing model.


     


    There, see how simple that was to understand once you threw away your misconceptions?


     


    No, don't click reply and start typing about how it's just my opinion that that's how it works. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, the truth, reality, the way things actually are... The App Store operates on a revenue sharing model.

  • Reply 44 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oomu View Post



    "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.


    but MS can stop the process for ios version of office.

  • Reply 45 of 105


    I wonder why Microsoft wouldn't pay up.  That company is loaded with cash and they're always throwing it around on everything else, so why not this.  This sounds like another unsubstantiated rumor circulating to stir up trouble between rival companies.

  • Reply 46 of 105
    galleygalley Posts: 971member
    umrk_lab wrote: »
    Microsoft Software? Sorry, I am not interested

    Fixed it for you.
  • Reply 47 of 105
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,312member
    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.

    Apple doesn't host anything - except the original app - when the app makers have their own billing system, and hosting service. As for the app store that's forced on the users.

    If a future version of Windows were to force all applications to be signed and downloaded through their app store, including iTunes, and then demanded 30% from Apple eliminating apples margin I expect the arguments would be different here.
  • Reply 48 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    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.

    Hmm.... I wasn't aware of hyperlinks to a browser being forbidden for bypassing the restriction.

    I don't agree that if you make a purchase via an iDevice once that all future purchases for a cross platform service should get 30% funneled to Apple.

    What does Skype et al. do for their cross platform service? So Skype et al. Any offer a link to their web settings which also allow for the purchase of additional services?
  • Reply 49 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    Apple doesn't host anything - except the original app - when the app makers have their own billing system, and hosting service. As for the app store that's forced on the users.

    If a future version of Windows were to force all applications to be signed and downloaded through their app store, including iTunes, and then demanded 30% from Apple eliminating apples margin I expect the arguments would be different here.


     


    Sounds like the Windows 8 store. Haven't seen anyone complaining about it. Oh, you were trying to compare desktop apps on Windows to iOS apps. Well, come back when you have a valid comparison.

  • Reply 50 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Hmm.... I wasn't aware of hyperlinks to a browser being forbidden for bypassing the restriction.

    I don't agree that if you make a purchase via an iDevice once that all future purchases for a cross platform service should get 30% funneled to Apple.

    What does Skype et al. do for their cross platform service? So Skype et al. Any offer a link to their web settings which also allow for the purchase of additional services?


     


    I don't believe you are allowed to include a link to a web site where you can make your "in-app" purchase outside the app. You can offer it on your web site (at least for subscription content, I believe, or books (e.g., Kindle)) but you can't include a link in the app to by pass in-app purchases.


     


    30% is the deal, across the board. Microsoft shouldn't get a special deal, just because they are Microsoft. In fact, Apple could find themselves in legal trouble if they started offering certain "developers" better deals than everyone else.

  • Reply 51 of 105
    larrya wrote: »
    Put a Word doc from work into iCloud and get back to me.

    That just works; try it out yourself. I did.
    tbell wrote: »
    dmarcoot wrote: »
    Photosynth from MS for iOS ios best thing they have done. try it


    I agree. That is a nice app.

    I had heard of it, but never took a look at it. And I disagree; I think that has zero to with photography, and it merely a feature put out because technology allows it. But to me it really is not something I would ever consider using it. Use it for what? I'd rather read stories on wht a specific place or event is interesting, and if I want to see a photo of it I'd rather look at a quality photo as opposed to a snapshot. Or many snapshots taken at the same location but at different angles or times. The video shown on TED.com by Blaise Aguera y Arcas didn't entice me to download the app, to upload photo's to whatever website or to appreciate the effort they have put into this tech. To me, it's very gimmicky and doesn't create any form of art or usability. YMMV

    [video]http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2007/Driverless/BlaiseAguerayArcas_2007-480p.mp4[/video]

    anonymouse wrote: »
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.

    I read that in app linking to your website for purchasing is indeed not allowed. And besides, once a developer signs the agreement in order to sell or distribute your App on the App Store you agree to the 30% cut. A one-man shop developer knows this and should foloow that rule. What's up with a 36-year old rival not understanding this very point?
    anonymouse wrote: »
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Hmm.... I wasn't aware of hyperlinks to a browser being forbidden for bypassing the restriction.

    I don't agree that if you make a purchase via an iDevice once that all future purchases for a cross platform service should get 30% funneled to Apple.

    What does Skype et al. do for their cross platform service? So Skype et al. Any offer a link to their web settings which also allow for the purchase of additional services?

    I don't believe you are allowed to include a link to a web site where you can make your "in-app" purchase outside the app. You can offer it on your web site (at least for subscription content, I believe, or books (e.g., Kindle) but you can't include a link in the app to by pass in-app purchases.

    30% is the deal, across the board. Microsoft shouldn't get a special deal, just because they are Microsoft. In fact, Apple could find themselves in legal trouble if they started offering certain "developers" better deals than everyone else.

    Indeed, one rule to fit all.
  • Reply 52 of 105
    Meh. Whatever, Microsoft. I don't want an Xbox either.
  • Reply 53 of 105
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,312member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    Sounds like the Windows 8 store. Haven't seen anyone complaining about it. Oh, you were trying to compare desktop apps on Windows to iOS apps. Well, come back when you have a valid comparison.

    Don't see what is necessarily invalid in that comparison. A tablet is basically a computer.

    Apple should get paid when it hosts extra content and when the developer needs to use Apples fulfilment system. Maybe they could even charge free apps with external fulfilment systems a price per download or active user i.e a user active in a period. Something nominal like 5c a period. The trouble with the 30% is that it eliminates the entire margins of some companies, that is it takes 100% of profits from companies who are themselves retailers and could handle their own transactions.

    Faced with competitors who give away hardware for free to push services Apple wants to make money on the hardware and all the services. The result is increasing hostility from medium to large devs who have their own fulfilment system, a movement to android from those devs, a move into hardware by scorned retailers ( Amazon) and a worse experience for users who would prefer the Kindle app to have a button which buys books, rather than having to go to Safari.

    Not that that makes much difference to me - all my ebooks have been found on Kindle because iBooks did not have much. I now have that collection on Kindle, along with a Kindle fire. I also have an iPad but not the mini. The fire would never have been bought were it not for the Kindle collection and the 2nd class citizenship the app has on an iOS device, in fact I would go further and say it never would have existed. Amazon possibly entered the tablet war because Apple squeezed them out of profitability on the iPad rather than make a deal - I don't know how many iBooks you have to sell to make up for the profits lost on a iPad, but let's say lots and lots.
  • Reply 54 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    Don't see what is necessarily invalid in that comparison. A tablet is basically a computer.

    Apple should get paid when it hosts extra content and when the developer needs to use Apples fulfilment system. Maybe they could even charge free apps with external fulfilment systems a price per download or active user i.e a user active in a period. Something nominal like 5c a period. The trouble with the 30% is that it eliminates the entire margins of some companies, that is it takes 100% of profits from companies who are themselves retailers and could handle their own transactions.

    Faced with competitors who give away hardware for free to push services Apple wants to make money on the hardware and all the services. The result is increasing hostility from medium to large devs who have their own fulfilment system, a movement to android from those devs, a move into hardware by scorned retailers ( Amazon) and a worse experience for users who would prefer the Kindle app to have a button which buys books, rather than having to go to Safari.

    Not that that makes much difference to me - all my ebooks have been found on Kindle because iBooks did not have much. I now have that collection on Kindle, along with a Kindle fire. I also have an iPad but not the mini. The fire would never have been bought were it not for the Kindle collection and the 2nd class citizenship the app has on an iOS device, in fact I would go further and say it never would have existed. Amazon possibly entered the tablet war because Apple squeezed them out of profitability on the iPad rather than make a deal - I don't know how many iBooks you have to sell to make up for the profits lost on a iPad, but let's say lots and lots.


     


    OK, well, despite your rambling post that seems to have little to do with anything, the ecosystems for traditional computers and current mobile devices don't follow the same business model, so, while it's a nice little fantasy game to play, it's irrelevant to this discussion.  

  • Reply 55 of 105
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    philboogie wrote: »
    I read that in app linking to your website for purchasing is indeed not allowed. And besides, once a developer signs the agreement in order to sell or distribute your App on the App Store you agree to the 30% cut. A one-man shop developer knows this and should foloow that rule. What's up with a 36-year old rival not understanding this very point?

    Indeed, one rule to fit all.

    I don't see how it's fair that one can have Skype on multiple devices but if they have a Skype client on an iDevice Apple gets 30% from all sales regardless if the sale happened within that app or not. If the sale happens within that app then it's an in-app sale and Apple should get 30% and it should be charged via the App Store, but if the sale happens elsewhere and is attributed to a services account, like a Skype In number or call time, then I don't think Apple should get 30% just because they approved the Skype client for iDevices.
  • Reply 56 of 105
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,312member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    OK, well, despite your rambling post that seems to have little to do with anything, the ecosystems for traditional computers and current mobile devices don't follow the same business model, so, while it's a nice little fantasy game to play, it's irrelevant to this discussion.  

    The "rambling post" was clear enough.

    There is no uniform way which "mobile devices" handle this. On android you don't even need their app store - you can download from the Internet and, of course, any app can handle their own credit card transactions. That's most of the market.
  • Reply 57 of 105
    solipsismx wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    I read that in app linking to your website for purchasing is indeed not allowed. And besides, once a developer signs the agreement in order to sell or distribute your App on the App Store you agree to the 30% cut. A one-man shop developer knows this and should foloow that rule. What's up with a 36-year old rival not understanding this very point?

    Indeed, one rule to fit all.

    I don't see how it's fair that one can have Skype on multiple devices but if they have a Skype client on an iDevice Apple gets 30% from all sales regardless if the sale happened within that app or not. If the sale happens within that app then it's an in-app sale and Apple should get 30% and it should be charged via the App Store, but if the sale happens elsewhere and is attributed to a services account, like a Skype In number or call time, then I don't think Apple should get 30% just because they approved the Skype client for iDevices.

    Hm, I agree, that should be the way it works. I didn't know this. Do you? I haven't read the App Store Guidelines, only took a gander but failed to find what I was looking for:
    https://developer.apple.com/appstore/in-app-purchase/In-App-Purchase-Guidelines.pdf
  • Reply 58 of 105
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    30% seems high but isn't an insane figure for sending the business your way. But it doesn't gel with Apple's policy of not allowing any other route (beyond the SkyDrive app) in IOS to update your account. In that context it does seem a stretch. What might happen by the chopping of rivals legs in the cloud game while charging a high percentage is that IOS will get the reputation for not being the place to be for cloud usage unless you prefer iCloud as your go-to space. I'm not THAT big a fan of iCloud to use it that way. I'm much happier using my 10 gig of free DropBox, which has always been not only flawless but intuitive and works in a way I like, and my company's few hundred gigs of SkyDrive, which was a pleasure to migrate to after relying on GoogleDrive but still has that wonky Windows way of doing things.

    After spending time in all of them, I really don't have much incentive to bolster iCloud's reputation beyond a handy place to keep a copy of your idevice contents. Wouldn't Apple be better off putting energy into making iCloud a really amazing no-brainer to purchase 200 gigs on rather than tossing obstacles in front of its rivals? All this means for Mac/IOS SkyDrive users is that they won't do the things Apple is not letting them do. It doesn't create any business for iCloud or make it look suddenly a better place to be.
  • Reply 59 of 105

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I don't see how it's fair that one can have Skype on multiple devices but if they have a Skype client on an iDevice Apple gets 30% from all sales regardless if the sale happened within that app or not. If the sale happens within that app then it's an in-app sale and Apple should get 30% and it should be charged via the App Store, but if the sale happens elsewhere and is attributed to a services account, like a Skype In number or call time, then I don't think Apple should get 30% just because they approved the Skype client for iDevices.


     


    Because the revenue was generated though the App Store. Remember, it's a simple, straightforward revenue sharing model of business. If you generate revenue through the App Store, you share 30% of it with Apple. They don't force anyone to have In-App Purchases. But, if you do, and you generate revenue through them, you agreed to share it with Apple. And, if the sale happens elsewhere, Apple doesn't get any revenue. It's that simple. You just aren't allowed to send customers out to the back alley. If they find their way there on their own, it's fine, though.


     


    Edit: Finding their way to the back alley is ok for some categories of purchases, but not others. For example, I don't believe you are allowed to sell game levels or consumables in the back alley at all. Subscriptions, though, clearly do allow this, they just aren't allowed to post a sign saying, "Back alley subscription sales, this way ->". :End Edit


     


    It's not like Microsoft doesn't know this. They are just trying to throw their weight around. Unfortunately for them, they've been on a diet for the past decade, and they don't really carry enough weight these days to bully their way to what they want.

  • Reply 60 of 105
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post



    The "rambling post" was clear enough. ...


     


    Just as a data point ... I found it rambling too and was going to reply with much the same comment but refrained after seeing someone else do it. 


     


    Both yourself and "TheOtherGeoff" seem to be holding down the major contrary opinions on this thread but even after careful reading and re-reading I can't make out what either of you are on about.


     


    As several others have already said, the 30% deal and what Apple does with the app store have all been talked about over and over again and the consensus of opinion is that what they do is both reasonable and fair. As has also been pointed out, Microsoft does the exact same thing with their store.  


     


    Finally, just because no one has mentioned it ... this whole situation is basically Microsoft's fault.  


     


    They knew the rules before they began and they not only violated them, they included the violation baked into the SDK so that many of the developers making SkyDrive based apps or having SkyDrive access added to their app, have also had their apps refused from the App store simply because they used the default information provided with that SDK.  


     


    Microsoft did this.  100% their fault, their problem, generated by them either out of stupidity or malice or whatever.  

Sign In or Register to comment.