Microsoft To Apple: Don't Take Your Normal 30% Cut of Office For iOS 724
An anonymous reader writes "Sources tell All Things D that Apple and Microsoft are at loggerheads over the cut Apple is expected to take of Office 365 subscriptions sold through Microsoft Office for iOS, which is expected to launch sometime next year. An update to Microsoft's SkyDrive app has been rejected after the company was 'pushing Apple to adjust the 70/30 revenue split in its developer license agreement. Predictably, Apple has refused to comply. It’s not yet clear what sort of concession Microsoft is seeking, but whatever it is, Apple’s evidently not willing to consider it.'"
We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again, what would the Microsoft do if they were in their position, suddenly play fair?
Re: (Score:3)
But then again, what would the Microsoft do if they were in their position....
40%
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's 20%. Windows Store takes only 20% of sales above $25K.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that a 30% cut is a bit too much...
No. It isn't. The only people who think that are those that have an axe to grind with Apple.
a) Pretty much every other app store out there has the same deal and, more importantly
b) When a company sells digital software themselves, they don't get to keep 100% of the sale price. They have to pay for hosting, bandwidth, marketing, sales processing, manhours involved in all of this, etc., etc., etc. Those numbers start to add up very quickly and anyone who's been even vaguely involved in producing and selling a product knows that they can quickly add up to near or above 30%. And doing it yourself doesn't give you the same marketing potential that Apple has when they do it and that marketing potential is not easily ignored.
Seriously, the only people who still bring this up (and mod it "Insightful" on /.) are those who are utterly ignorant of reality and just want to gripe about Apple (while ignoring all the other app stores operating under the same terms).
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm...Apple already charges developers for merely listing their apps - $99 a year. That's HUGE and more than covers all the stuff you talked about - hosting, bandwidth etc.
They don't need to do this. They're just being greedy dicks.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you seriously just claim that $99 is HUGE(in all caps, even)? Seriously? I would imagine, for the average developer, $99 per year is VERY low on their expenses, after things like coffee.
We clear have different definitions of HUGE...
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI, a cup of coffee costs less than 10 cents in India (which is where I live). We're talking about about 1000 cups of coffee every year for no tangible benefit since I get the same for free on Google Play.
It may seem less, but I have this thing against throwing money away when I don't have to....
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, don't spend the money & stay out of the Apple Appstore which is where the lions share of profits are taking place in the mobile marketplaces. By profits I do not mean Apple's but that of all the devs in the Apple Appstore compared to all the devs in all the others.
There are two expressions that seem to apply: Cutting off your nose to spite your face & you gotta spend money to make money.
In any case, should you decide to avoid spending the princely sum of 1% of your yearly earnings to gain
Re: (Score:3)
Who's whining? I get my satisfaction from seeing my app used by people and want no financial compensation in return.
In which world are you living that this is seen as a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this straight - you think that digital marketing, billing and distribution of Office, one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world, can be achieved globally for less than $99?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me guess who does it for a one time fee of $25....
Anyone? Anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
$99 is pretty trivial...not huge. There's no way it could cover the costs associated with vetting/hosting/distributing/selling any moderately successful app. And don't forget Apple wants to make a profit. Consider that at 30% - Apple is mostly covering costs and making a small profit from the App Store. It's not a significant source of revenue for them as a company.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
And when you give up coding, do you continue to pay $99 a year merely for the privilege of having your apps there? I work as a writer in India and earn around $10,000 a year which is a pretty good standard of living in that country.
Why, oh why would you choose to do that when you could have your apps on Google Play for free?
I mean, it costing less (according to you) isn't the same as it costing nothing! And I don't agree it costs less either.
Re: (Score:3)
Stuff is huge/small by comparison.
I pay $25 once to list all my apps on the Google Play store. Compared to that, it's simple math that $99 a year is huge.
I mean come on...these are facts you can't really argue with.
Re: (Score:3)
> They have to pay for hosting, bandwidth, marketing, sales processing, manhours involved in all of this, etc., etc., etc.
The one thing Apple does which is really valuable is payment processing. They have the customer's CC number, so there's a lot less steps to purchase. There's also a lot more trust, as you know Apple isn't likely to sell your CC.
That's it. Everything else is a bonus.
But having the customer's CC in the system is worth at least 30%.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more importantly, since Apple takes care of all the credit card stuff, and as an app developer you never have cardholder data in your possession; you don't have to worry about PCI DSS compliance.
I have enough headaches enforcing PCI at work. If I had to deal with it at home I wouldn't touch the App Store, or anyone else's mobile store, with a 10' pole.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Informative)
No. It isn't. The only people who think that are those that have an axe to grind with Apple.
a) Pretty much every other app store out there has the same deal and, more importantly
No, stop playing the "poor Apple" card.
This is about in-app purchases like Netflix subscriptions, ebook stores etc. Not 30% cut of apps.
Seriously, the only people who still bring this up (and mod it "Insightful" on /.) are those who are utterly ignorant of reality and just want to gripe about Apple (while ignoring all the other app stores operating under the same terms)
Wrong again.
From http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/07/20/making-money-with-your-apps-through-the-windows-store.aspx [msdn.com] [msdn.com]
Using your own billing system
Your app and service may already depend on a particular transaction provider or benefit from ties to other lines of business. Your customers want the trust and efficiency of a familiar, trusted transaction experience. You can use your own transaction provider within your app to provide the experience your customers expect.
If you are not using the Windows Store as your transaction provider, you will want to make sure that your app meets all of the certification requirements such as: Identifying the transaction provider to the user during purchase confirmation Prompt the user for authentication before processing the transaction Your payment processor must meet the current PCI Data Security Standard
For example, this wouldn't happen on Windows Store.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2011/02/apple_bans_sony_e-reader_app_a.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/02/21/apple-rejects-readability-due-to-subscription-policy-where-wi/ [tuaw.com]
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/48130-apple-forces-e-tailers-to-remove-in-app-links-kobo-to-offer-html5-browser-ereader.html [publishersweekly.com]
This wouldn't have happened on the Windows Store and probably not on Play Store as well(you can always sell an APK directly for sideloading or use one of the 3rd party stores on Android).
Sorry, but Apple apologists like you need to come up with a better defense of Apple than trying to muddy up things by saying "everyone else is doing it". They're simply not.
Re: (Score:3)
So then it does something trivially useful but far from being the full all for the full price. It's still tax avoidance.
So, Apple has no problem with tax avoidance with the current system but you want to change the system to make it possible. I don't see it happening.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
"they test and validate"...
This leads to poor security updates for applications in apple store because of the delays introduced byt the "testing and validation" procedure.
And that test is more about censorship (banning apps doing things THEY don't want to be done... like 3rd party in-app store, emulation or other 3rd langage interpreter to avoid "data as programs" which would bypass the Apple-Tax, ...). It's not about the good of the customers, it's only about their own good !!!
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
So... just reduce the price. Zero sounds about right, and then it does not really matter who gets what percentage of it.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Informative)
So... just reduce the price. Zero sounds about right, and then it does not really matter who gets what percentage of it.
The fun part is that Apple demands 30% of any upsells through the app, even free apps. What hosed the 'skydrive' update was that it had an option to purchase additional storage baked into it somewhere, directly between you and Microsoft, without the tithe to Apple.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, Apple wants you to pay for the infrastructure that your app uses?
The horror!
No, Apple wants to be paid for any goods or infrastructure that happen to be sold through programs running on their devices. Stuff that they had absolutely no relation to, 'skydrive' server space in some MS datacenter, accessed through the user's ISP, Kindle ebooks licensed by Amazon and downloaded directly from them, that sort of thing.
That is where the in-app-purchase rules get interesting. Yes, obviously, Apple doesn't want "Pissed-Off-Pigeons, $3.99" to turn into "Pissed-Off-Pigeons-Lite $0, in-app-upgrade $3.99, no money goes to Apple!"; but the cut is the same whether the in-app purchase is essentially just another ITMS download, or a wholly 3rd-party transaction for some good or service provided entirely by a non-Apple entity.
Contrast with Google Play (Score:4, Interesting)
Google requires a similar cut for in-app purchases made through Google's payment handling system, the difference is that Google doesn't require apps to use Google's payment system for in-app purchases when the good or service can be used outside of the app itself whereas Apple requires all in-app purchases to use their payment system and be subject to the 30% cut. Google's system prevents you from using in-app purchase to bypass the 30% cut on the store by making the app free and providing essential functionality through an in-app purchase, Apple's approach is considerably more intrusive.
Re:Contrast with Google Play (Score:4, Insightful)
The Play store model pays for what costs Google money. It may not subsidize OS development, but all the rest of Google's services do that.
Google makes money from iOS use because iOS hasn't managed to monopolize the mobile OS market allowing Apple to prevent Google from being able to make money from it. Why is that? In large part, because of Android. While the long-term goal for products like Chrome (via ChromeOS) and Android is, of course, for them to become profitable in their own right, a major part of the value of both lines (Android and Chrome as Chrome-the-browser) has been in shaping what other people do in the mobile OS and browser space and in preventing/disrupting dominance of either space by a non-Google party, and thereby protecting Google's ability to continue to make revenue from its core business.
Most likely, Google stops making money on iOS in fairly short order (and quite likely, much of the money they make outside of iOS), unless someone else with the will, resources, and ability steps in to prevent iOS dominance followed by Apple leveraging that dominance to take away Google's best revenue opportunities on the platform (and some that extend beyond the platform.) Chrome and Android serve in no small part to preventing a dominant browser or mobile OS vendor from leveraging that dominance to threaten Google's advertising and search business.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it makes money from iOS largely because of AdMob, but the need to compete with other platforms is why Apple doesn't capture more than it already does of the revenue generated by any vector through iOS, including mobile advertising and search.
Re:With Regard to Microsoft? I Have One Bit of Adv (Score:5, Insightful)
This lends credence to my observation that prolific Slashdot posters like yourself(and the moderators) are more concerned about hating and bashing Microsoft than protecting or enhancing developer freedom which is being killed by Apple :)
Re:With Regard to Microsoft? I Have One Bit of Adv (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct way to enhance developer freedom is by not having anything to do with Apple. If you are hoping Apple might some day turn over a new leaf, you are doomed to disappointment.
Re:With Regard to Microsoft? I Have One Bit of Adv (Score:5, Funny)
They may not turn over a new leaf - but they sure will trademark it - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/10/apple_applies_to_trademark_the_leaf/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:With Regard to Microsoft? I Have One Bit of Adv (Score:5, Insightful)
But I can understand telling Microsoft to "shut up and take it" in this situation - unless they're lobbying for better rates for ALL developers and not just trying to push their weight around to get a better one-off deal with Apple, then they need to shut up and take it and play by the same unfair rules as everyone else who wants to be in on the iOS market.
Re: (Score:3)
However, anyone thinking that either company would waste money trying to influence anyone by paying people to post on Slashdot is the true ignoramus. As if the world in general, outside of a few geeks that don't really matter, even KNOWS what Slashdot is, let alone care enough to have it influence them in any way, shape, or form.
Now off to cash this big fat Microsoft check...
Re: (Score:3)
And everyone (particularly MS) is just copying Apple's walled garden approach, with the same 30% 'developer tax' and $99/yr for the privilege of developing for their platforms....
Re:With Regard to Microsoft? I Have One Bit of Adv (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately, it's the hardware guys who are dangerous. You can get locked into shitty software(particularly if you have an enterprise level interlinked spaghetti clusterfuck of the stuff); but the software guys can only attempt to make switching vendors more expensive than renewing your support contract.
The hardware guys, though, can ultimately leave you with nowhere to run(your software) unless you have a truly heroic appetite for 7400s and wire wrap...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
If the complaints are about Apple taking a 30% cut of in-app purchases how exactly is Android an alternative? Google takes a 30% cut for both app purchases and in-app purchases as well. Yet somehow only Apple is "evil" for doing this.
Transaction fees for app purchases: [google.com]
For applications that you choose to sell in Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the application price.
In app purchases: [google.com]
The standard 30% transaction fee applies to in-app transactions on Google Play.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you aren't forced to use Google's Plat store, there are others, and side loading is allowed as well. You are also not forced to go through Google for in-app purchases I believe. Both of these services are set up so that it is convenient, and you *want* to use it. You are not forced to.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you aren't forced to use Google's Plat store
But if you want to reach 90%+ of all devices you'll have it on the play store.
there are others,
Like Amazon who also takes a 30% cut of all sales?
and side loading is allowed as well.
Of which very few people are going to ever do.
You are also not forced to go through Google for in-app purchases I believe. Both of these services are set up so that it is convenient, and you *want* to use it. You are not forced to.
Nope. [arstechnica.com] Google prohibits using 3rd party payment processors for in-app purchases. Google is acting no different than Apple.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Informative)
But if you want to reach 90%+ of all devices you'll have it on the play store.
Humble Bundle seems to be doing just fine bypassing the Play store (and Google's fees) entirely.
Of which very few people are going to ever do.
Again, this is what Humble Bundle does.
Nope. [arstechnica.com] Google prohibits using 3rd party payment processors for in-app purchases. Google is acting no different than Apple.
Again, this is only for apps sold via the Play Store. You're welcome to bypass the Google ecosystem entirely. And they take a very small percentage [google.com] of the transaction, which is more in line with typical credit card fees, nowhere near close to the 30% Apple charges.
Google is acting nothing like Apple.
Google Play not required for all in-app purchases (Score:4, Informative)
That article is, if not misleading at the time published, at a minimum outdated (as the reference to "Android Market" makes clear.) The current Google Play terms only require use of Google Play for in-app purchases for digital goods that are exclusively usable with the app:
Re: (Score:3)
Please note, you could install a different browser then IE6 on windows 95/98, but that did not stop the anti-trust law suit from happening against M$ in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
This, exactly. The Google Play store is a service Google provides to developers. It's not a straitjacket.
Google Play not required for all in-app purchases (Score:3)
The difference is that Apple requires all purchases through App Store apps to be made using their in-app purchase system with their 30% cut, whereas Google allows in-app purchases and takes a 30% cut for those that use Google's in-app purchases system, but doesn't require in-app purchases to use Google's system except for goo
Re: (Score:3)
The difference here is that Windows has roughly 90% of the desktop marketshare (what is generally considered a monopoly market share), whereas iOS has an estimated 20%-50% (depending on who you ask) (30%-50% for Android).
Source [wikipedia.org]
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference here is that Windows has roughly 90% of the desktop marketshare (what is generally considered a monopoly market share), whereas iOS has an estimated 20%-50% (depending on who you ask) (30%-50% for Android).
Source [wikipedia.org]
The other major difference is that MS' attempts at anticompetitive behavior were fundamentally the same economic tactics that were already far from novel in 1890, when the Sherman Anti-trust act was put in place to combat them. Arm-twisting OEMs, tying, allegations of dumping, etc. Fundamentally very retro stuff.
Apple, by contrast, has built their strategy around a much more contemporary approach: cryptographic lockdown. They have no need to stoop to any 19th-century robber baron supply chain shenanigans against 3rd party application distributors, OEMs, or whatever. It's all just baked into the hardware.
Now, it's still a question of whether their market share is large enough for the fundamentally closed nature of their ecosystem to matter; but it is a significant distinction. If you look at regulators' treatment of Microsoft, they have largely focused on any attempt by MS to strong-arm what goes on on top of Windows, in the attempt to ensure that (while MS is the dominant platform vendor) they cannot leverage control of the platform into control of markets on top of the platform. In the case of Apple, the situation is almost the reverse: they are not the dominant platform vendor; but their dominance of all activity on top of the platform is nearly absolute.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who wants to make a competing product could quite happily target Android, Windows Phone, or Blackberry devices and ignore Apple's iOS ecosystem entirely. It's not the only player in the mobile market - hell, as Android users here seem to LOVE to trumpet, it's not even the dominant player in that market.
"Apple has a monopoly on operating systems for iOS devices" is not a valid monopoly claim any more than Honda complaining that "Ford has a monopoly on Ford-branded cars" is a valid anti-trust concern. There are numerous alternatives, one of which Microsoft themselves own.
I would love to see Apple open up its rules on installation from non-Apple sources... but it's not going to happen by shouting "monopoly" at them when they are a distant 2nd place in the mobile space.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
... and Microsoft takes a cut.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... and Microsoft takes a cut.
Actually, Microsoft allow you to do your own subscription transactions in the app, and do not take a cut of that, unlike Apple. To say that this is pretty major for everything related to subscription revenue is an understatement.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:5, Funny)
It's a curious world where the #2 selling product is a monopoly.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Interesting)
Seen the market share stats? iOS is nowhere near Android in terms of market share. Making it nicely insulated from criticism of monopoly practices while it takes ALL THE MONEY ON THE TABLE.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps for apps, but Apple does nothing like that for in app purchases like Kindle ebooks or Netflix or Office 365 subscription(the fucking topic we're supposed to be discussing btw) but still wants to charge 30%. How do you support that?
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Interesting)
What part aren't they doing from the list above?
Hosting app/in-app purchases - yep
Collecting payment - yep
Remitting to developer - yep
Distributing updates/purchases - yep
Providing notification service - yep
Making apps/updates easy to find - yep.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I am a game dev, and I think 30 percent is pretty cheap for services offered.
Google Play offers less service: apple handles all local sales taxes for you, google does not.
Also, flash portal royalties are often abysmal: the developer gets the small part, the portal the large part.
30 for google play is fair, for apple App Store I would pay 40 percent as well.
Re:Platform == racketeering (Score:4, Insightful)
But it would definitely support more indie development which is one of the greatest things money just can't buy.
The iOS store has been a huge success for indie and small development. For small developers reduced marketing costs, customer processing, reviews.... are easily worth 30%. It is bigger developers that see that cost as punitively high.
As for opening the platform up. The problem is one of security. The security model on iOS requires the generation of provisioning files. Which means Apple ultimately has to support the distribution on an individual software -> device level. If you don't want to use provisioning files and just load whatever you want, that's just jailbreaking and that has been widely available throughout the iPhones life.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft only takes 30% for the first $25,000 of a given app. After that it's 20%.
More importantly, they allow third party in-app subscription transactions and do not take a cut of that. That is a very major difference to Apple.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Funny)
$25,000??? Does the Windows App store have that much revenue???
(I keed, I keed...)
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, all three WP8 users buy a lot of apps! ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Cassidy Pope singing Stupid Boy (The Voice Performance) sold $29,912 in the last 24 hours in the U.S.A. on iTunes. She likely sold even more the day before.
To be "a blip in Microsoft's accounting system", sales need to be at least 10 million. Reaching $25,000 in sales a month after launch, hobbyist platforms like the Rasberry Pi do better ...
I suspect some independent software vendors are weeping quietly ...
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about in-app subscriptions. Microsoft, unlike Apple does not mandate that you need to use their in-app purchasing model. The Kindle app on Windows 8/WP8 would be allowed to sell books in app or link to the Kindle's site. On iOS, Kindle was forced to remove even a link to the Kindle site.
From http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/07/20/making-money-with-your-apps-through-the-windows-store.aspx [msdn.com]
Using your own billing system
Your app and service may already depend on a particular transaction provider or benefit from ties to other lines of business. Your customers want the trust and efficiency of a familiar, trusted transaction experience. You can use your own transaction provider within your app to provide the experience your customers expect.
If you are not using the Windows Store as your transaction provider, you will want to make sure that your app meets all of the certification requirements such as: Identifying the transaction provider to the user during purchase confirmation Prompt the user for authentication before processing the transaction Your payment processor must meet the current PCI Data Security Standard
So, Microsoft is not being a hypocrite here while Apple is trying to install a toll on every bought on an iOS device, even if you stop using the iDevice after a month and use the service on other devices, Apple wants 30% of the entire subscription. Guess which company gets a free pass on HN while criticism is piled on which company even while developer freedom is compromised before our very eyes. Everyone raised hell when MS proposed Palladium but when Apple implemented the Palladium spec to the letter the same journalists were stepping over each other to praise the iDevices. Same here, misinformation is being spread about the 30% cut by Apple afficionados to blame Microsoft while another facet of developer freedom is lost.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why people say Apple is even more restrictive than MS, and it's true. The question is whether the users realize it.
Re:We are the 30% (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We are the 30% (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I find shocking is that you find an anti-Microsoft stance on /. to be shocking.
What exactly do you mean by 'promoting dev freedom by taking on Apple?' Apple's created an ecosystem that allows software developers to actually make money. Most of the crappy apps that people pay for on the Mac App store were available before the App store as shareware -- the developers couldn't find major distribution for them and no one paid money for them. When it comes to the iPhone apps, like 90% of them are junk but thousands of developers are making money off them thanks to Apple providing the market.
I don't know where you got this idea that developers are entitled to some special form of freedom. As a software developer you're free to do whatever you want, but if you want to make money then market forces will create restrictions. But that's how it always is. A musician is free to play any type of music he wants, but if he wants to make money off his music he better play something that people will pay money for. Does a bar owner restrict musician freedom by not hiring jazz musicians? Maybe, in some abstract perversion of the word freedom, but no one's entitled to profit.
The only thing I can conclude from your various posts on this topic is that you're very young. If you were part of my generation you would understand why people on /. (especially those low UIDs) cheer the demise of Microsoft. There's a difference between what Apple does -- leverage their platform and popularity to their advantage; and what Microsoft does -- actively bribe, lie, and destroy competition by any means necessary. Look up the Halloween Documents, for a glaring example.
Microsoft stagnated technology when innovation should have been at its finest (look up Windows 95 and the internet). Since the late 90s Apple has done nothing but keep the tech industry on its heels by constantly innovating and creating quality products. That's why so many /.ers use Apple products and hope to see them succeed further: We remember what it's like to have no feasible alternative to Microsoft and we don't like it. Freedom. . .how quaint. The only thing I want to be free from is using Microsoft products, which unfortunately is something I can't do with my current job.
Re: (Score:3)
RMS was right as usual
That's funny. Oh, wait, you were being serious.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference with Android is that regular users can get their apps from elsewhere and developers can offer an alternative sales channel. I'll agree with your assertion the day Apple provides a "install from unknown sources" checkbox (off by default if you wish).
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me where I had to give 30% to Google when I bought my last Humble Bundle for Android...
I downloaded an APK, installed it and it took care of downloading the other files and installing them on both my phone and my tablet.
On Google, the use of Google Play is not mandatory... And In-App buys can be done by either Google Play or other ways, your choice (well, the developper's choice). The 30% cut only apply to things bought through Google Play.
On iOS and Apple iDevices, you're FORCED to install (and bu
Lets bargain (Score:3)
Is 100% too much?
The article failed to mention (Score:5, Funny)
A threatening note was tied to a chair and flung through a window at Apple headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
A threatening note was tied to a chair and flung through a window at Apple headquarters.
Was the window open or closed?
Re:The article failed to mention (Score:4, Funny)
Was the window open or closed?
I can't say, there's this blue screen that won't let me see the window.
Re:The article failed to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I hate Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I hate Microsoft, I'm behind them here. Perhaps they should just drop all their apps suddenly and promote the Android and Windows Phone versions?
Re:As much as I hate Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
No Apple has a point here. The reason why Apple charges 30%, even if that may seem high, is that its FAIR! How many times do bigger companies have an unfair advantage over smaller companies? Apple is saying, "hey big or small you pay the same fee!" Of course Microsoft is irked because they play by a different set of rules. Rules that they like to make up. Oh wait, this is the company that has been charged with monopolistic practices.
My answer to Microsoft, "tough shit live with it!"
Re: (Score:3)
The reason why Apple charges 30%, even if that may seem high, is that its FAIR!
I can hardly think of any reasonable definition of "fair" in this context that would be *that* simplistic. It's the same with taxes. You can only keep saying "if everyone pays 20% income tax it's FAIR" until you realize that poorer people are more taxed by consumption/excise taxes already. Different app costs, differtent app complexity...BTW, what are the actual costs to Apple anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not complaining about
Re:As much as I hate Microsoft... (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't MS planning on doing the same thing apple is through the windows store? and isn't the windows store the only way to get things on Windows RT?
No, Microsoft takes 30% or less on transactions they run, but developers can collect money any way they want. An app can be free through the store and paid for via a license key bought on a company website if the developer wants to build their own infrastructure for that.
Apple says, in essence, you can't sell content or features in an application through any mechanism but theirs, and they get the 30% in perpetuity if that sale is a subscription. That's why you can buy things in the Kindle app on Windows 8 but not on iOS. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to sell your application and anything associated with it through us", they're simply saying "you can only distribute modern apps via the Windows Store". You can monetize those via their services for 30%, or you can do it yourself via another mechanism and pay the percentage the other registration service charges. Or DIY and pay the processor fees.
Not actually 70/30 (Score:4, Informative)
Now Apple's plan is not to make money from the stores (thought is just a welcome side effect), but to have good app stores to make you buy Macs and iPhones and iPads. Still, if Microsoft got say 80% of the "official" price, Apple might actually lose money on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not actually 70/30 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not actually 70/30 (Score:4, Insightful)
Who modded this informative?? A significant percentage of gift cards are never redeemed, more than enough to cover the retailers cut and then some.
You think apple might lose money on 20% transaction fees????? Paypal and other payment processors charge ~$.30 + 2-3% percent transaction fees and they aren't losing money.
Apple is making 25%+ pure profit on every transaction.
Who to root for... (Score:5, Funny)
Who should I root for when I want both sides to lose?
Go, banana!
Re:Who to root for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have mod points, but I'm not going to use them. Instead, I'm going to explain how I believe you're mistaken.
Back in the late 1990's/early 2000's, Microsoft pretty well owned the desktop. (They still do, to a certain extent, but their stranglehold is starting to look a lot weaker) There was, for all practical purposes, no competition on the desktop whatsoever.
(Yes, I know Apple existed, I know it was possible to run a Linux desktop, I know more than a few /.'ers did. Hell, I did. But that's not the point. The number of people who did so as a percentage of the whole market were such a tiny minority that for all intents and purposes, they may as well not have existed).
Anyhow, back to the matter in hand. Office went through several revisions - Office '97, 2000, XP and 2003. For most end-users, there was virtually no difference between any of these versions. It didn't start to get real attention until lots of large organisations started to take OpenOffice seriously. You may or may not like the Ribbon interface, but it does demonstrate that Microsoft are taking Office seriously.
Similarly, Internet Explorer stayed at version 6 for 5 years. It wasn't until Firefox started to gain serious traction that a new team was put together to write IE7, which was released in 2006. Since then we've had two more versions of Internet Explorer and there's a third on the way; but I don't doubt for one minute that had IE 7 crushed the competition back to 2001 levels, there wouldn't have been an IE 8 or 9.
The point I'm making is even if you hate Apple with every fibre of your being, even if you think Ballmer should close down Microsoft and give the money back to the shareholders, probably the worst thing that could possibly happen to the technology industry right now would be for your dreams to come true. The entire industry basically moves forward from companies all cribbing ideas off each other; when there's nobody left to crib ideas from things go very stagnant very quickly.
Didn't MSFT want $40,000 to certify a patch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, when it was their OWN store, for the XBox, they wanted $40k to certify a patch on a game:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/microsoft-comes-under-fire-for-five-figure-xbox-360-patch-fee/
Suddenly when other companies want *their* cut to sell in *their* store, it's suddenly objectionable?
Hasn't the tables really turned here, Apple doesn't need MS Office for the iPad to be a success. Indeed Microsoft needs certification for it's Office 365 to succeed. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
If Microsoft didn't release it for iPad, so what Polaris office or similar would work just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The point here is that people are complaining about fairness in this thread and how it's unfair to Microsoft, when MIcrosoft itself is quite happy to dictate far worse terms to other people.
MS is acting like a privileged person who suddenly is no longer in a privileged position: by wanting special treatment anyway and not knowing how to react when they get told to pound sand.
This is not about app purchases... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a small developer, I would love if Apple took a smaller percentage of app purchases (which as others have pointed out isn't really 30% when you factor in referral fees, retail markups on iTunes gift cards and the credit card processing fees they pay out), but it's great that by enforcing rules they are effectively taking a step toward leveling the playing field for the small guys. (Instead of giving sweetheart deals to fellow big guys.)
But in this case, we're not talking about app purchases-- we're talking about transactions that occur in an app, and this has always been a questionable rule. It a straight tax on transactions. It's in the same vein as Verizon demanding Google pay them because Verizon customers are accessing Google "through their pipes."
And it's more inconsistent than people realize... I routinely place orders for food in the Delivery.com and the SeamlessWeb apps and because I have no credit card on file with either, I enter my credit card info for payment instead of using an iTunes account. So no 30% goes to Apple for my burrito, but DropBox leaves a link to their website in their SDK and suddenly all hell breaks loose. But Apple has a DropBox competitor and doesn't currently offer burritos I guess...
Re:This is not about app purchases... (Score:4, Interesting)
apple has a clear rule that it won't charge 30% for physical items
Re: (Score:3)
And it's more inconsistent than people realize... I routinely place orders for food in the Delivery.com and the SeamlessWeb apps and because I have no credit card on file with either, I enter my credit card info for payment instead of using an iTunes account. So no 30% goes to Apple for my burrito, but DropBox leaves a link to their website in their SDK and suddenly all hell breaks loose. But Apple has a DropBox competitor and doesn't currently offer burritos I guess...
It's not that the rule is applied inconsistently, it's that you don't understand what the rule is. The rule is you pay apple 30% if the thing being sold can be used in the app. Doesn't matter if it's a subscription that you can ALSO use online elsewhere, if it's usable in the app, you pay 30%. A burrito can not be used in an app. Dropbox storage can. A subscription to Office365 can.
Awww, poor widdle Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that big mean company not being nice?
If they don't want to pay to play in Apple's playground, there's a simple, two step solution (with apologies to Larry Wall, I believe):
1) Make your own mobile platform
2) Make it popular
Apple to MS: No (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, MS needs Office on iPad more than Apple does. I know that's not the accepted conventional wisdom, but the truth is that in the BYOD trend, people want iOS and Android devices. No CEO walks down to IT and says "I really want a Surface RT!" They do want an iPad because they see their kids with one and think it's fancy and way more portable than the laptop they have now (which it is).
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements. Office is a huge cash cow, and the last thing MS wants is people using something else. Using Office on Surface is ideal. Using Office on iPad is alright, since it continues the Office lock-in. Using something else on an iPad is a nightmare scenario in Redmond.
Apple would like to have Office, but the truth is that they're doing just fine in the enterprise without it. They don't have to cut Microsoft any special deals, and indeed not doing so makes them look good in the eyes of pretty much all other app developers: everybody likes a level playing field a lot more than they do an environment where Microsoft is special. (That doesn't even mention people who have done Xbox development and would love to see MS get some of its own treatment back, given how lopsidedly awful the terms for development on that platform are.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
30% of all iTunes on Windows purchases to MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Tit for tat. Why not?
Re: (Score:3)
Tit for tat. Why not?
While I'm torn as to who to root for, your suggestion isn't comparing apples to apples.
Apple sells the app through their store and they want their normal cut.
Your proposal states that Microsoft should get a cut because Apple's store-app that connects to Apple's store runs on Windows.
So... not even in the same ballpark.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Delicious Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...no. (Score:3)
The subscription isn't even going to be sold through the MS Office apps, those are to be bought separately on the Office 365 website.
Apple's position is, and always has been, that subscriptions bought through in-app purchase pay Apple the 30% cut—because they're going through Apple's payment process and paying through their iTunes account—while subscriptions bought elsewhere, Apple doesn't care about. (They used to care enough to demand that they be priced the same as subscriptions through in-app purchase, but now, IIRC, they no longer even do that.)
So you're as full of BS as the next irrational Apple-hater.
Dan Aris
iOS apps can only sell using in-app purchases ... (Score:3)
Apple's position is, and always has been, that subscriptions bought through in-app purchase pay Apple the 30% cut—because they're going through Apple's payment process and paying through their iTunes account—while subscriptions bought elsewhere, Apple doesn't care about.
I think all sales done by an app have to go through Apple's in-app purchase system. You can offer subscriptions and services elsewhere but the purchase has to be done outside of the app. I don't think the app can even send you to the web for such purchases to avoid in-app.
Now for MS Office this seems like a minor issue. I expect people will have Office on their computer and mobile device. So do the subscription purchases from the computer.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure... unless they can negotiate a better deal on the basis that they can convince Apple that they need Office enough that they are willing to cut the rates for it.
Re:uh... no (Score:5, Insightful)
"What the fuck do microsoft think makes them so special?"
(a) $70B annual revenue, (b) $230B market cap, (c) almost ubiquitous use of their office suite for personal and business document creation.
If you don't think that's leverage for negotiating a better deal, then you have even less business sense than I do (which is pretty terrible).