Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SkyDrive 3.0: Microsoft Gave Up Fighting Apple's 30% Cut

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

Microsoft 121

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft on Wednesday released SkyDrive 3.0 for iOS out of the blue. Last time the app was in the news, Apple was stopping Microsoft from pushing out an update in the App Store because the company doesn't pay a 30 percent cut of the subscription revenue it generates. Now we've learned how Microsoft managed to update its iOS app today. 'We worked with Apple to create a solution that benefited our mutual customers,' a Microsoft spokesperson told TNW. 'The SkyDrive app for iOS is slightly different than other SkyDrive apps in that people interested in buying additional storage will do so via the web versus in the app.' Does this set a precedent for an iOS version of Microsoft Office?"

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43351973)

first

Re:first (0)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43351997)

wow

Re: first (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | about a year and a half ago | (#43357323)

In tights?

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (5, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43351995)

It sounds like Microsoft didn't so much as give up, as go around Apple. If you buy on the web, Apple doesn't get the cut. Microsoft got the app into the app store. Pretty much seems like Microsoft got most of what they wanted, and Apple got nothing other than the ability to say their policy is still unviolated. Which, considering the nature of it, isn't exactly a great marketing ploy.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352061)

Yeah. I understand Apple's policy, but the only people who really lose are the consumers. I remember after this went into effect, the first time I went into my Amazon Kindle iOS app and tried to buy there. No button, no link, no freaking hint of how to buy a book. How do you do it? You buy on the web, then tell Amazon to synch to your device which you've registered.

Works for Apple, I guess. I ended up just going to iBooks and buying there. I kind of despise Amazon anyway, but it would have been nice to have the choice while maintaining a similar end-user experience.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

mattventura (1408229) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352219)

It might get more people to use Apple's services, but what about apps which do not actually compete with any of Apple's offerings? Apple gets nothing from it since devs can bypass them by having purchases go through the web. Developers and users suffer because it is less convenient for people to make in-app purchases. Everyone loses with Apple's policy.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (4, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352337)

No, Apple wins. Because there is competition between apps, and some app publishers will decide pay the 30% tax and make it easier for customers, and they might get more paying users that way.

It's like those immensely profitable companies bleating that their money is "trapped" overseas and they can't use it to "invest" in the USA. No it isn't trapped at all, just pay the taxes.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353697)

Apple is bound to lose over the long term, as products sold by them are 30% more expensive and that is the message that is now going out over this and many other forums. M$ won by publicising that Apple customers are paying 30% more for applications when they buy via iOS, they are cunning sods and can never be trusted. They will do it again, basically every time Apple let's them do it, very public negotiations, to ensure that Apple connedsumers are aware they are paying 30% more for Apple sourced products.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (2)

warrigal (780670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354987)

Well, it's just as well nobody else charges 30% for in-app sales through their curated App Store on top of the initial sale...
What? Who? Oh!

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1, Flamebait)

sosume (680416) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355637)

Apple is riding high now, and as we all know, pride comes before the fall. Apple WILL go down within the next two to three years and nobody will help them as they've been acting as a bunch of spoiled bullies for the last five years. They have not made a single friend in the tech industry.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356033)

Apple is bound to lose over the long term, as products sold by them are 30% more expensive

Do you have any evidence for that? Thought not.

a) If services aren't sold through Apple's system, then they need to be sold through another system. And none of them are free. Not even home-rolled ones. 30% is decent value for the service.

b) Software products are priced to end users by what the market will bear, not by a bill-of-materials.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356027)

Users win from all the apps that DO use Apple's standard in-app purchase system, that gives them a standardised purchasing system, without having to enter name address and credit-card details over and over again to each different service.

Apple makes it easy for developers to to the right thing for users, and hard to do the user hostile thing.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356307)

...and easier for the unscrupulous to swipe details as they're easily located...

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43357027)

Stupid comment. If one company has your details, that's far safer than if 100 companies have them.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43359923)

Yes... and No.

It depends I suppose on whether you reckon that 1 known (or easily deducible) database structure is safer than 100 databases where you have no idea how the data is stored.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43357003)

It doesn't matter because 75% of the planets mobile device users don't use apple products.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352969)

No button, no link, no freaking hint of how to buy a book.

If there had been the app wouldn't have made it into the store.

Works for Apple, I guess. I ended up just going to iBooks and buying there

Rewarding the asshole moves isn't going to ever make them stop.

I kind of despise Amazon anyway, but it would have been nice to have the choice while maintaining a similar end-user experience.

What was amazon supposed to do? Raise prices everywhere so they could afford to give Apple a 30% cut off the top? That's ridiculous, and I'm glad Amazon and now Microsoft has given Apple the finger on this.

One other thing I noticed recently, it seems HumbleBundle can't support ios due to Apple's policies.

I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.

You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".

Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356091)

I bought the previous round, which had xplatform games for Win/Mac/Linux and Android. But not IOS, even though several (all?) of the games are available on IOS.

You cannot buy a license to cross-platform ios games because there is no way get the game to you. You can't side load the game. And you can't even download a locked game and then activate it via a key or something because that implies that you are working around the apple store and "ripping apple off its 30% take" and "that's not allowed".

Kind of pathetic that even charity is a victim of apple's policies here.

First of of "HumbleBundle" are not a charity. They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit.

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store, or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.

That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.

Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it. User's have been able to "sideload" apps to smartphones, since the late 1990s. And yet it didn't take off until Apple gave users ease of use in finding, buying and installing apps.

Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43359079)

First of of "HumbleBundle" are not a charity.

I didn't say HumbleBundle was a charity. I said charity was a victim.

They are a business that uses charity and the work of developers to promote themselves and profit. ...and profit the developers, and support charity. You seem to have a real axe to grind here, why?

Their default funds allocation gives 65% to the developers, 20% to charity, and 15% to themselves, and they let the customer change those numbers if they want. As far as 'for profit' business models go, this is about as inoffensive as one can get. Especially in a conversation talking about apple who take double the amount that the humblebundle takes, and do a lot less for it.

Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to stop humblebundle, selling apps through the App Store,

Yes, actually there is. They sell cross platform licenses -- if I buy the apps on linux I get the windows/mac/android version too. If the ios app were included, and I buy the apps on any platform other than ios, how am I supposed to collect my ios version?

or using in app purchase, and donating some or all of their profits to charity.

Sure, after Apple takes 30%. Which is more than either humblebundle or charity get by default. To pay apple for services that are completely unnecessary and unwanted, seeing as humblebundle is providing its own hosting, payment processing, marketing, etc.

That the humble-bundle's chosen business model, designed after the App Store was opened, isHumble-Bundle's choice, not Apple's.

Yes, lets blame humble-bundle's chosen business model of selling crossplatform licenses as the problem here.

Remember, Apple's success with creating an app ecosystem is BECAUSE of their one stop App Store policy, not despite it.

The app store is a great idea. The idea that you are absolutely forbidden from using anything but Apple's ios store has always been the issue. Apple's app store would have taken off even if it wasn't 100% mandatory, because it's user friendly, and safe, and its a great place for developers to offload all the hosting and transaction costs to a 3rd party.

The idea that apple's business model is to prevent consumers from doing what they want with their own phone is a problem. Why should apple have any say in the matter after I buy an iphone?

Other companies that want to sell apps or services don't get access to that for free. Why should they?

Your asking the wrong question. They shouldn't get access for free. But what if they don't need or want access to the app store? They just want to deliver products their customers paid them for directly.

On android you can actually download and install the humblebundle app, that essentially adds another "store"; and you can install any of your android apps through that app. Its all very neat and user friendly. More ore less like "steam for android". Great concept -- it sucks that you can't do it on ios.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353069)

Exact opposite for me, it ensures I'll never use iBooks, no matter how many times it prompts me to install it. I can ready my Kindle catalogue across all my devices, and buy pretty much all f my books on there. Weird how things have changed - I'll root for any company against Apple now. They're just a greedy shell with no innovations, leeching as much as they can from customers and devs alike. Fuck em.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355639)

Same here. I own a raft of Kindle books. Zero iBooks. Apple can lick my dirty, dirty touchscreen.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352117)

It sounds like Microsoft didn't so much as give up, as go around Apple.

Microsoft did not give up anything and there was nothing to "get around". Apple's rules are very clear: in app purchases pay Apple a percentage, web purchases do not. No deceit involved by either party.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (2)

laird (2705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352189)

Exactly right. Apple charges for providing the in-app and app-store purchasing infrastructure,marketing, consistent user experience with high adoption rates, etc., for which they charge 30%. Companies have been free to choose not to use it, and do try to drive people to web sites for purchasing for as long as there have been iOS apps. It's a simple decision, really. If you would lose more than 30% of your sales due to the "friction" you use Apple's in-store and in-app purchasing. And if you think that you would lose less than 30% of your sales you sell access to service/content through the web site, and give the app away for free.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

countach (534280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352241)

Yeah yeah, but its crap for consumers. The fact is Amazon can't afford to give Apple 30% because they'd be in the red. So consumers have a crap experience, and Apple's iBook store gets a rather unfair competitive advantage. I'm a big Apple fan, but I have to call them out in this instance of being annoying.

Amazon & Microsoft Have Already Built Their Br (1)

glennrrr (592457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352605)

Even if Amazon could 'afford' it, they wouldn't. Amazon doesn't need Apple's service to make people realize you can buy e-books from Amazon. They've spent a lot of years getting people up to speed. A startup, on the other hand, selling (for instance) car service manuals on iPhone would find it worthwhile to pay Apple the 30% because otherwise nobody would have a clue that you had to go to such and such a website.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352905)

Yeah yeah, but its crap for consumers. The fact is Amazon can't afford to give Apple 30% because they'd be in the red. So consumers have a crap experience, and Apple's iBook store gets a rather unfair competitive advantage. I'm a big Apple fan, but I have to call them out in this instance of being annoying.

If Amazon can't actually afford their predatory practice of selling stuff bellow what they pay, maybe they should stop, instead of complaining about Apple. Especially since they have no trouble taking 30% off of everything they like. Not to mention that before Apple came along, they asked an even higher share on some of their "services". Heck, they still offer to sell your ebooks at two rates, at one they take 65%. And yet they are in the red.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43354527)

30% of the purchase price is all that Amazon makes on ebooks from major publishers. If they gave that all to Apple, they'd have no money left over to fund application or infrastructure development. And Amazon isn't allowed to set the price on those books.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355809)

30% of the purchase price is all that Amazon makes on ebooks from major publishers

Actually no, they sell at a loss.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353229)

Oh poor amazon, they must be scraping by on pocket change. They can more than afford it. Every other company providing a payment service gets their cut even when you use a card in a real shop. Why do think apple should be the only one who gets nothing for use of their payment system? In fact apple is probably paying something to visa and MC, etc for transactions so you think they should lose money for amazon to profit off their work?

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353501)

If Apple were charging the kind of rates that credit card companies charge (1-3%), a lot fewer people would have a problem with that.

Also, Apple wants to collect the fees even if you don't use their payment systems (e.g. provide an in-app link to a web page).

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355777)

If Apple were charging the kind of rates that credit card companies charge (1-3%), a lot fewer people would have a problem with that.

Also, Apple wants to collect the fees even if you don't use their payment systems (e.g. provide an in-app link to a web page).

Fitting Nickname, given that you only give the charges and want us to ignore the fees.

And of course ignore the fact that if APple didn't do that, the App Store would be full of bogus "free" apps that required you to buy a key from a website to enable true functionality. And I'm thankful that Apple protects me from bullshit like that.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43360393)

Yeah for good reason. To discourage you from asking people to go off to some shady website to enter your payment details. It's their reputation on the line too, perhaps more so, if they let a bunch of con-artists into the app store.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

countach (534280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354975)

No they can't afford it because if they set the retail price at 30% over their wholesale price they would be massively undercut by Apple's iBook store. It's a case of unfair competitive practice, that's all.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355787)

No they can't afford it because if they set the retail price at 30% over their wholesale price they would be massively undercut by Apple's iBook store. It's a case of unfair competitive practice, that's all.

While Amazon nicely avoids that by not allowing any alternatives on their Kindles. All your 30% are belong to Amazon.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356333)

It's easy to put PDFs and other ebooks onto Kindles. I use Calibre on linux to transfer/convert books to my Kindle.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43356869)

It's easy to put PDFs and other ebooks onto Kindles. I use Calibre on linux to transfer/convert books to my Kindle.

So can you buy them from an app on Kindle? Or was my quite simple point to complicated for you, fanmazon?

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

keytoe (91531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352361)

Companies have been free to choose not to use it, and do try to drive people to web sites for purchasing for as long as there have been iOS apps.

It's certainly not true that this has always been the way it worked.

Back in the iOS 1.x days, I was involved with developing an app that attempted to generate revenue using a 3rd party site. The app sat in 'waiting for approval' for months with no response from Apple no matter who we contacted. As soon as we removed that functionality and resubmitted, the app was approved within a week.

Basically, if they thought you were trying to get around their revenue stream, you'd find yourself in Limbo without recourse or notification.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

ashpool7 (18172) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352451)

Yeah, so... there was no app store requiring Apple approval in the "iOS 1.x days" That's the Jailbreak App Only era.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353379)

Well will you look at this bullshit. There wasn't an App Store in the 1.x era. If you must shill or be a fanboy at least try to keep your facts straight.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (2)

keytoe (91531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353905)

Well will you look at this bullshit. There wasn't an App Store in the 1.x era. If you must shill or be a fanboy at least try to keep your facts straight.

Whoops - I meant 2.x days. It was when the store first opened. Settle down, puppy.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352455)

Companies have been free to choose not to use it, and do try to drive people to web sites for purchasing for as long as there have been iOS apps. It's a simple decision, really. If you would lose more than 30% of your sales due to the "friction" you use Apple's in-store and in-app purchasing. And if you think that you would lose less than 30% of your sales you sell access to service/content through the web site, and give the app away for free.

Don't forget if you want to "go it alone" as well, you need to have a payment infrastructure. If you're a company that sells services via the web, no big deal, you already have it. If not, well, Apple's 30% cut (and Google's as well - since they ban using alternate services if Google Wallet is available) is looking mighty handy.

Though, at least Google gives the seller your email and other nice information. Use Apple's infrastructure and you don't get diddly - your app would have to go and sync with the site account to get a hint as to who may have just spent money via Apple.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353701)

WRONG.

Apple charge 30% **If there is in app purchasing at all**.

If you write an app; that has a button: "BUY NOW!" that leads to a web-form with credit card details and you type them in and click buy., you must pay Apple 30%.

if it is in the app, regardless of if it uses Apples "user experience" or your own custom-app-written user experience. You must pay apple the 30% tax Even if you never used Apples infrastructure to perform the sale; to host the resulting purchased content; or if your up-front fee for your app was free or not.

If you are on the app store; you can't sell from inside an app without sending Apple 30%.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353717)

Whats worse?

If you sell this product from a web page for 1 dollar; and use Apples "in app" purchasing system, and choose to factor in the cost of Apples tax, and charge 1.30, you are banned from the app store. Apples "in app" purchasing system must have the same price as every other system. Or you get banned. (and by banned; I mean denied entry to the store - which is basically banning).

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

flargleblarg (685368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354589)

I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but 30% off of $1.30 is $0.91, not $1.00.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43354601)

factor in the cost of Apple's tax, and charge $1.43

FTFY. I know it's one of the most pedantic of pedantic moves, but that's the way it goes.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353821)

Exactly right. Apple charges for providing the in-app and app-store purchasing infrastructure,marketing, consistent user experience with high adoption rates, etc., for which they charge 30%.

No, they charge $99 a year for that, which is why you pay that fee regardless of whether your app is free or paid.

Companies have been free to choose not to use it, and do try to drive people to web sites for purchasing for as long as there have been iOS apps.

In recent times they switched their policy on this matter to prevent you from even including a link to an external payment system.

It's a simple decision, really.

It should be, use Apple's payment system and pay 30% for the privilege, implement your own in-app payment system or link users to your own external payment system. Apple now artificially prevents the latter two.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352839)

There are, however, some idiotic restrictions like not being able to link to anything that mentions the web purchase system.

The most visible example is Dropbox, where Apple said that they weren't allowed to link to Dropbox.com because the Dropbox.com site has a link titled "Check out our pro and business plans!" which links to a page which links to another page that lets you upgrade your subscription.

If it were just a matter of "hey, if you want to use our convenient in-app system, you have to give us a cut" that'd be OK. But Apple is trying to make it as difficult as possible to go outside their system.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352491)

It sounds like Microsoft didn't so much as give up, as go around Apple.

I'm sure someone will rapidly correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe they can go around Apple. Software has to be signed to install, and only Apple has the key. That's why you have to jailbreak to run unsigned apps.

The only way "around" that is to either (A) have updates that are "content" (new maps, skins, etc) that are data that does not need to be signed, or you have to run interpreted code and your main app downloads the update code and runs that (or compiles it or something). But Apple has that base covered too, no interpreted languages. That's what's made emulators rare on the iDevices, they're against the rules. (for the wrong reason, the no-emulation reason is to prevent out of appstore apps, not to prevent game emulators, so they're just collateral damage)

But this isn't a purchased app, it's a subscription. So either Apple gave MS a waiver on the no-emulation rule, or gave them a waiver on the no-subscriptions.

Could be just MS throwing lots of money in Apple's face and getting an exception made, or maybe some new policy in the works at Apple. Would be interesting to have more details on it though.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353419)

You're right but you're missing the point. Any app from the App Store is free to download files. What the apps are vetted for is downloading "additional executable code" and even that's been relaxed with several emulators already in the store. None of this of course has anything to do with subscriptions or a la carte purchases. The rule there is "pay 30% on every transaction between consumer and corporation or entirely disconnect the subscription experience and workflow from the app". Is it a dick move? Yes. Is it surprising? No. I like Apple kit and the customer support I've received has been what-the-fuck-just-happened levels of amazing but they're as big a dick as anyone out there when it boils down to it.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

khchung (462899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352777)

It sounds like Microsoft didn't so much as give up, as go around Apple. If you buy on the web, Apple doesn't get the cut. Microsoft got the app into the app store. Pretty much seems like Microsoft got most of what they wanted, and Apple got nothing other than the ability to say their policy is still unviolated. Which, considering the nature of it, isn't exactly a great marketing ploy.

This approach is nothing new, Amazon did the same for its Kindle apps on iOS. You cannot buy books on iOS Kindle and have to do so through Amazon's website.

The news is Microsoft relented and followed the same rules as others instead of fighting for special treatment.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

trdrstv (986999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353827)

Pretty much the same thing Amazon did. You can now use the MP3 App or Kindle app on iOS, but there's no "buy additional content" within the app. You need to buy on a pc / android etc...

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353943)

Pretty much the same thing Amazon did. You can now use the MP3 App or Kindle app on iOS, but there's no "buy additional content" within the app. You need to buy on a pc / android etc...

You can buy Amazon ebooks through Safari on iPad then load them into the Kindle app.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

trdrstv (986999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354145)

yes, but that still isn't an "in app purchase" so it's ok by apple.

Re:Maybe I'm not reading this right, but (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43356015)

You say this as if Microsoft has done some clever manoeuvring. But they've taken one of the two choices that Apple explicitly give. One which thousands of apps before have taken.

The choice is, and has always been:

1) You take the money via the App Store, either in the cost of the app, or by in app purchases. And Apple gets a 30% cut.

2) You take the money outside the app. As you like. But you can't promote that within the app.

(For the pedantic, yes there was a time before the App Store has in-app purchases. But that didn't affect those choices - 30% if via App Store. 0% outside the App Store. But you can't promote paid for extras in the app, unless they come from the App Store.)

What a bad precendent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352019)

Dr Stephen Jobs must be rolliing over in his grave

This says that as long as your app makes its revenue outside of the Apple walled garden, you don't have to give Apple a cut

And now this establishes a legal precedent for a framework of similar deals in the future for every app developer, contingent upon the proper legal framework (i.e., a class action lawsuit if necessary)

Re:What a bad precendent (1)

laird (2705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352215)

"Dr Stephen Jobs must be rolliing over in his grave

This says that as long as your app makes its revenue outside of the Apple walled garden, you don't have to give Apple a cut

And now this establishes a legal precedent for a framework of similar deals in the future for every app developer, contingent upon the proper legal framework (i.e., a class action lawsuit if necessary)"

I guess you hadn't noticed, but that's been the choice for as long as there's been an iOS App Store. And there have been companies selling products through their web site that are then accessed in iOS apps for YEARS. Have you heard of Amazon? Netflix? Hulu? So the "news" is that MS made the same decision that those companies did. So it's not a new thing, not a dramatic precedent, and wouldn't upset Jobs since he's the one that set it up that way.

Re:What a bad precendent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352243)

If by "bad" you mean bad for greedy corporations such as Apple, then yes, I agree. Otherwise, this is a win for consumers.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352027)

Wasn't it obvious this was the way to go? Make a mobile version of the site to accept billing information. Why didn't they do this months ago?

iOS Office? No! (2)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352045)

The majority of iOS users would not want office since they do not use it in a productive manor. They use it to text, play games, and send pictures of their penis's / boobs to random people. no need for an access database to sort your penis pix.

Re:iOS Office? No! (4, Funny)

AlphaBit (1244464) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352065)

Speak for your own penis pix, please.

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352081)

no need for an access database to sort your penis pix.

Plus, we all know that a NoSQL setup is perfect for sorting pix of boobs.

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352119)

Most people don't even use it inside of a manor at all; they're old, creepy, and quite hard to come by these days.

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352259)

Unless you're a Meerkat, in which case manors are available but they are dry, dusty, and full of holes.

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

Volguus Zildrohar (1618657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353291)

Just like the photos sent between elderly iOS users?

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355223)

Is there any other kind of iOS user?

Compare the meerkat (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353445)

Unless you're a Meerkat, in which case manors are available but they are dry, dusty, and full of holes.

Which is why you need to compare the meerkat [youtube.com] first. Simples.

Re:iOS Office? No! (5, Funny)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352257)

The majority of iOS users ... send pictures of their ... boobs to random people

I'm trashing my android phone and getting an iPhone today!

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353529)

Check the gender of the people doing the sending first.

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353937)

Check the gender of the people doing the sending first.

That's a waste of effort, you just know they'll all be male.

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355249)

And all old...

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43359377)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43359481)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't judge, I'm just optimizing for time.

Re:iOS Office? No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353089)

Well that's because iOS users are a self-selecting sample of people who don't need to use it in a productive manner. There are so many more people who don't use iOS at all because they can't be productive with it. I cal iOS devices toys precisely because they can't be used for productivity.

Re:iOS Office? No! (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353871)

I'm waiting for the iOS version of WordPerfect.

Uhhhh . . . (4, Insightful)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352069)

"Does this set a precedent for an iOS version of Microsoft Office?"

No, it means I'm now officially tired of both companies. I hadn't realized that computers had just become red-tape machines instead of facilitators.

Title is wrong (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352179)

Microsoft offered up this compromise months ago. And besides, I thought the SkyDrive fight was just being used as a proxy, since the real battle is over Office revenues. No way in hell Microsoft lets Apple get a 30% cut of Office 365 revenue.

Not really news... (1)

jaskelling (1927116) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352201)

So Microsoft had to follow the same rules as every other developer...even after all of their stalling & complaining? Either pay the 30% cut to have in app purchases or have the purchase separate on the web & sync it separately. Just like Amazon and Nook and everyone else. And what precedent would it set? MS will put up a free "read only" version of MS Office for iOS in the app store, make you go to the Microsoft site to purchase it, and you'll get a key to unlock the remaining functionality or give you access to the Office 365 features. No big whoop. Microsoft is just learning that their name doesn't inspire fear and the need to immediately comply to their demands anymore, and it frustrates them. In the future, the same thing will happen to Apple. It's how the tech world works out.

Re:Not really news... (2)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352391)

So Microsoft had to follow the same rules as every other developer...even after all of their stalling & complaining? Either pay the 30% cut to have in app purchases or have the purchase separate on the web & sync it separately.

For you the customer (or potential customer) either the convenience of in-app purchases gets lost, or the purchases cost you 30% more for no good reason. You're happy about this why?

Office is a potential 3 or 4 billion dollar business on the iPhone. That would make Apple roughly 1 billion dollars in revenue, for work they didn't do. Obviously that cost is passed on to customers. It's not just Microsoft -- it's kindle books from Amazon and many other things. Why do you want to pay more?

Apple's rules certainly are clear. That's not the same as saying they make sense. 30% cut, one-size-fits-all-business models? Doesn't make sense.

Re:Not really news... (2)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352787)

There is a larger issue at hand I'd expect... subsequent billing... as services like SkyDrive, Office 365, Netflix, etc aren't just used on one device... and tend to be paid for on a regular cycle.

Letâ(TM)s take MS out of it... letâ(TM)s say you buy an iPad, download the Netflix app and sign up for an account (something I do not believe the app supports)... by doing so Apple gets it's 30% cut... each month in theory.

A year or three goes by and you decide to wipe your iPad and buy a non iOS device... in fact, you no longer have any Apple device in your home and now watch Netflix through a Roku or PS3... should Apple still be getting a 30% cut each and every month until you cancel the subscription and re-subscribe?

Re:Not really news... (1)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353361)

Oh absolutely these issues exist currently, and are not exclusive to MS. The only difference is that MS was the only one big enough to fight Apple on this matter (though it looks like even MS has caved now).

Re:Not really news... (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354865)

True to a point... but they have also created their own little walled garden (Windows 8 apps) without as many of the policy restrictions as Apple... granted they are starting off quite far behind.

Re:Not really news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43355799)

Oh absolutely these issues exist currently, and are not exclusive to MS. The only difference is that MS was the only one big enough to fight Apple on this matter (though it looks like even MS has caved now).

And by "fight" you mean "whine loudly about it to get some free publicity". And by "big enough" you mean Amazon and Dropbox are tiny, really.

Re:Not really news... (1)

teg (97890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355583)

There is a larger issue at hand I'd expect... subsequent billing... as services like SkyDrive, Office 365, Netflix, etc aren't just used on one device... and tend to be paid for on a regular cycle.

Letâ(TM)s take MS out of it... letâ(TM)s say you buy an iPad, download the Netflix app and sign up for an account (something I do not believe the app supports)... by doing so Apple gets it's 30% cut... each month in theory.

A year or three goes by and you decide to wipe your iPad and buy a non iOS device... in fact, you no longer have any Apple device in your home and now watch Netflix through a Roku or PS3... should Apple still be getting a 30% cut each and every month until you cancel the subscription and re-subscribe?

In this case, Apple still has to handle costs for credit card processing, international currency and VAT handling, some customer care for billing etc.

Re:Not really news... (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355595)

Apple only gets a cut if you make the purchase through them. Recurring subscriptions are not indefinite. They have to go through the Apple store on a monthly basis. If you sell your iPad, then you'll have to find some other mechanism for paying for your subscription... If that doesn't go through Apple, then they will no longer get a cut.

Re:Not really news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353639)

So Microsoft had to follow the same rules as every other developer...even after all of their stalling & complaining? Either pay the 30% cut to have in app purchases or have the purchase separate on the web & sync it separately.

It's not just that, it's that you cannot even link to your external payment gateway from within your app or implement your own in-app purchase mechanism. It's an attempt to artificially create a shitty user experience for any payment system other than Apple's to force developers to give them more revenue.

Bifurcated Pricing (1)

cstream_chris (776009) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352261)

I wonder if any developers have bumped up rates for in app purchases (+30%) while still giving the option to buy on the website w/o the premium. Not sure if this would violate any rules, but this would seem to offer customers a choice, while exposing Apple's cut for convenience.

Re:Bifurcated Pricing (2)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352329)

I wonder if any developers have bumped up rates for in app purchases (+30%) while still giving the option to buy on the website w/o the premium. Not sure if this would violate any rules, but this would seem to offer customers a choice, while exposing Apple's cut for convenience.

It is against apple's terms. And honestly, it's pretty ridiculous IMO. I don't see how they can both force you to use them for in app purchases, and then dictate that you must pay 30% for anything purchased through the app. Thank god apple didn't create the first web browser or every website that sold products would have to pay apple to do so.

Re:Bifurcated Pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353279)

I wonder if any developers have bumped up rates for in app purchases (+30%) while still giving the option to buy on the website w/o the premium. Not sure if this would violate any rules, but this would seem to offer customers a choice, while exposing Apple's cut for convenience.

It is against apple's terms. And honestly, it's pretty ridiculous IMO.

Yup, it is pretty ridiculous. Your claim that is. E.g. Dropbox offers both in-app purchases to their Pro-service as well purchases on their web site.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dropbox/id327630330?mt=8 [apple.com]

Obvious outcome (1)

Deimos24601 (904979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352273)

Things came to a quick resolution after Steve Ballmer threatened to throw a chair at Tim Cook.

We have to to do the same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352291)

my company makes a app to assist nonprofits in collecting donations - we have web, android, and ios apps; for the android version we have in app giving, for the iphone we have to pass the user to a webpage in safari then back from that to the app, it works but it's rather annoying to have to do it that way :(

Re:We have to to do the same thing (2)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352619)

Companies might have to start issuing license keys in this manner for their s/w to get around Apple's stubbornness..

- Download app for free from the store
- On first launch, app sends you to a webpage where you can buy a license
- Copy-paste license key into app (or something like that)

Apple's basically messing with the user experience by being stubborn.

Re:We have to to do the same thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43352985)

Apple won't let you link to a website from your app if they think it might interfere with their app store revenue.

That's why Dropbox wasn't allowed to link to dropbox.com from their app SDK, and why the Amazon app for iOS only allows you to buy physical products -- you can't buy Kindle books or music from their iOS app, even though you can read Kindle books purchased elsewhere (from an Android device, from the web, etc) on your iPad.

I don't know how far Apple's restrictions go; I suspect if they allowed it at all it'd be something inconvenient like "enter your email address to learn more about this product" or something else that doesn't directly mention out-of-app purchasing.

Re:We have to to do the same thing (1)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353377)

Right -- which is why they're doomed to fail eventually. They just refuse to learn from their own past -- they've had their 5 years of glory with the iPhone and the decline is on hand now.

Re:We have to to do the same thing (2)

teg (97890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355593)

Companies might have to start issuing license keys in this manner for their s/w to get around Apple's stubbornness..

- Download app for free from the store - On first launch, app sends you to a webpage where you can buy a license - Copy-paste license key into app (or something like that)

Apple's basically messing with the user experience by being stubborn.

This is not allowed. What is allowed, and many companies do, is that you sign up on their web site and can then access the service on iOS. Or you get free access if you already have the service, the IOS app is just another delivery mechanism - e.g. you get The Economist [economist.com] free on the iPad if you subscribe on paper.

This is the standard, "permissible" way for Apple (4, Informative)

bradgoodman (964302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352379)

Apple explicitly allows this - I think this goes back a couple years with Kindle stuff. If you sell through apple, they get a cut. If you are going to take money thought the app, you have to do it via the AppStore, thus Apple will get a cut. The other provision is that if you allow you app to merelty talk to an existing "subscription", you can do that. You just cant do purchases, or exchange money through the app. For example, I can go to Amazon's web site and buy a Kindle book and link it to my Amazon account. I can get the Kindle app and look at any books in my Kindle account. I CANNOT however purchase books through the Kindle app while NOT doing this through Apple and the AppStore. This is why you can read Kindle books, but not purchase them via the iOS app.

Re:This is the standard, "permissible" way for App (4, Funny)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352511)

Pray they don't alter the deal any further.

Re:This is the standard, "permissible" way for App (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353743)

Wow, about as deep as your mom was.

Btw, I hit her cervix about halfway in.

Re:This is the standard, "permissible" way for App (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43353119)

They don't "allow it" - the only reason they don't try to extort money from companies selling via any other channel is because it'd be racketeering.

Apple are a bunch of fucking greedy assholes.

Re:This is the standard, "permissible" way for App (1)

Hassman (320786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43358239)

I remember when all the retailers were up in arms about credit cards and the exchange fee. How dare Visa and MC add a 3% surcharge in exchange for paying the retailer immediately and incurring all the risk of actually collecting the money owed. Recently the credit card companies want to up that surcharge a bit and it is getting massive media attention. "Would you pay 2% more for your clothes" and all the like...

Now shift over to Apple's business model. It is the same damn thing....ya know, except Apple charges 30% and provides nothing except "the privilege" for your app to charge the credit card that Apple has on file. They area pass through, nothing more. And yet, no one seems to care about this?

How is this not anti-competitive? How is this not abusing monopolistic power? And yes they are a monopoly the second you buy their device and are 100% locked into their store and their rules. How is it that every other company that has done this is taken to task but Apple gets a pass? I don't get it.

30% is extortion! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43354795)

Would someone drop a RICO on this company. A 30% cut to be allowed to write apps for a platform is extortion, plan and simple.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?