9 ms·

Apple blocking SkyDrive from iOS store, wants cut of revenue

178 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

notatoad 14y ago
Seems only fair, everybody else has to pay 30% on purchases made in-app, Microsoft should too. The only thing worse than a stupid rule is a stupid rule that some people get excluded from.
- nanodeath 14y ago
  I think the main problem they point out is if I get x gigs of space for 2 years, for which I pay monthly, and then switch to Android after 6 months, Apple still gets paid 30% for each the remaining 18 months. Which sort of makes sense, and sort of doesn't...
  - JasonFruit 14y ago
    Are there other in-app purchases that can leave the iDevice? I'm wondering about precedent.
    - smackfu 14y ago
      Dropbox.
- hdra 14y ago
  The fact that everyone has to pay 30% for putting a link to their subscription sign up itself is not fair. The TNW article goes more into more detail on this.
  - megablast 14y ago
    It kind of is/kind of isn't. Without this rule, it makes it easy to circumvent Apples payment altogether. And of course, there are some things that Apple should be be getting 30% for. It is not black and white. I wonder how Microsoft will handle this in their store? I would be surprised if they did not copy Apples model, as they already have.
    - hdra 14y ago
      From the original article: Our iOS app “Files Pro” [Link] includes support for SkyDrive using the official Live SDK. A few days ago our last update was rejected by the Apple review team because of the presence of the “Sign Up” button in the Live login authorisation page. According to Apple the presence of this button violates their guideline that[quote from Apple guideline]: and also: My iOS app “CloudMusic for SkyDrive” utilizes LiveConnect SDK for iOS to stream user’s audio content to iDevice. I have a “Sign In” button that invokes LiveConnectClient “login” method which shows Windows Live sign-in page in UIWebView. The app was rejected by Apple review team saying that “the log in interface must be native and not a link or a web view.” Is there any other way to login to SkyDrive? So, my main problem is not just about payment(even though I think it is a problem as well), its more about how Apple wants to get a cut from every single little thing that have the possibility of making money from developers to the point of being [almost] unreasonable. ah, btw, Windows Store allows 3rd party transaction processor. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/jj193599.aspx/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/jj19359...
      - bitcartel 14y ago
        Very frustrating for developers who get caught in the middle. Same thing happened with Dropbox a while ago, where developers had to wait for a new SDK which was safe for the App Store, before being able to update their apps.
nsxwolf 14y ago
MS can get around this the way Amazon has and redirect users to the web site. Or, I'm sure they can work something special out with Apple - they are Microsoft, after all. BTW, Microsoft has done a real bang-up job with SkyDrive. The free versions of Word and Excel are fantastic, and even scroll with native app like speed in the browser. SO much better than the horrible code base they use for the Word/Excel viewers in Outlook Web Access and Sharepoint.
- hdra 14y ago
  Read the linked TNW article, they are not even allowed to do that. Not even the 3rd party developers using the Skydrive SDK is allowed to do that.
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    Hmm, I stand corrected. That's quite a pickle there for Microsoft.
pablasso 14y ago
Well, it may be a sucky rule, but it's been there for a long time. They can't say they're surprised.
crazygringo 14y ago
So I'm very curious if anyone can help see a "intuitive fair line" better than I can (because I can't find one). On the one hand, it makes perfect sense Apple wants 30% on apps. They run the store. On the other hand, it seems like Amazon should be able to sell books, Dropbox should be able to sell space, etc., without paying 30% -- otherwise it's financially impossible. But if you allow apps to sell content within without paying 30%, then all of a sudden all apps become free, selling "upgrading functionality" within, and the app store is no longer viable for Apple. You can't even make a rule like "reselling 3rd party content is exempt from the fee", because apps will claim additional functionality as 3rd-party. You can't make a rule that "content accessible on other devices is exempt from the fee", because gamemakers will just make their in-game purchases accessible on the Android version too, or something. Can anyone think of a clear, unambiguous rule that would allow things like Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon, etc. to get around the 30% fee, but without allowing loopholes that would allow everyone to skirt it? I swear my brain thinks there's a distinction, but I can't figure out what it is.
- JuDue 14y ago
  This is a good point. Also wondering what's stopping MS from doing down the DropBox path and not allowing purchases on iOS.
  - hdra 14y ago
    Microsoft offered to remove all paid subscription option, but the compromise was rejected.
    - JuDue 14y ago
      Well who really knows how two IT giants communicate. There is little to stop MS from expecting the DropBox model to be accepted - it depends what else they are asking. We simply don't know the details of all this, beyond the MS focused blog item. MS want Skydrive and their own mobile/tablet App prowess recognised.. .. and here they are David compromising with Goliath!
    - jemeshsu 14y ago
iamtherockstar 14y ago
I work on the Ubuntu One iOS team. Our apps have this same issue. I think it really affects user experience, because you can't allow sign up for premium features, but you also can't even mention those premium features (say, with a link to where you can find out more). If you don't already know about them, you're not going to find out in the app.
- taligent 14y ago
  Weird. Because Evernote showcases premium features.
  - hboon 14y ago
    Because Evernote allows users to buy them through iOS in-app purchases.
    - josteink 14y ago
      Because Evernote is willing to pay the Apple extortion fee for something which isn't costing Apple anything.
- geofft 14y ago
  You can't link to anything, but I believe you can verbally describe them and that's fine.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    I think you can even point out the url in plain text, like "Subscribe by visiting www.myapp.com/iphone/subscribe" (i.e., no link - user has to type that in Safari herself)
- spullara 14y ago
  You could, you just choose not to pay Apple.
hdra 14y ago
Here is the linked TNW article that goes into more details of the problem: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at-the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps-integrating-the-microsoft-service/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a... I am not associated with TNW, I just think that everyone should read it as it seems like there are quite a lot of questions regarding things that has been covered in the article.
mynegation 14y ago
I buy stuff from Amazon on the desktop computer and read it on iPad and iPhone Kindle apps. So far works great for me. Dropbox is even easier, you really need to worry about paying for premium once a year, if that, more like once in five years when your credit card expires, so this is a non-issue. In both cases I downloaded apps because I used desktop versions extensively not vice versa. I wonder if Apple's cut is a big deterrent for mobile-first strategy that was recently discussed in Fred Wilson's post that appeared on HN.
akandiah 14y ago
Original article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at-the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps-integrating-the-microsoft-service http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a...
beedogs 14y ago
Thank god for jailbreaking. Apple's devices get a lot more useful when you don't have to play by their idiotic rules.
- meaty 14y ago
  Just buy a different device. Jailbreaking isn't the best option as one day, they might just find a way of making it impossible.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    It is kinda impossible today (compared to golden days of iPhone OS 3.1 - I must've freed a good 50 iPod touches back then (for my friends)!). You have to wait a few months after any major or even point release, and jailbreaking new devices might take up to 7 months (I think that was the case for iPad 3)!
  - wladimir 14y ago
    Not only that, but by buying from Apple you are subsidizing the practice anyway, so that next time they can develop an even harder to crack version. Aside from that it's a boondoggle, an economic waste to build protections just to crack them. Better to buy hardware from vendors that allow (or tolerates, such as Samsung) rooting and installing custom firmwares.
- addlepate 14y ago
  It introduces drawbacks of its own. I think the best idea is to decide how willing you are to put up with Apple's guff, and then use that to guide whether you even get an iPhone at all. They design their products to be used in certain ways and going outside of that is doable, but annoying. Also, jailbreaking doesn't address this problem at all. Unless you think MS will put out a SkyDrive app that you can get from Cydia or whatever, which they won't.
Karunamon 14y ago
This kind of garbage is eventually going to attract legislative scrutiny. The iPhone is the single most popular mobile device in at least the USA, and Apple has a complete monopoly on applications for that device.
- alayne 14y ago
  Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly in the smartphone market.
- danso 14y ago
  Android systems are no slouch. I think legislative measures should be a last resort
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    legislative measures should be a last resort Indeed. I don't see any other possible course of action to resolve these abusive business practices.. do you?
- horacio 14y ago
  Indeed it will certainly attract needed scrutiny. Both by the lawmakers and by the courts. The presumption by all of these vendors who operate their own app store is that they are legally protected in tying their hardware product (their smartphone, for example) to their online store. But there is a history in both the written law and from the courts that makes these 'company store' policies illegal. There is no technical reason whatsoever that prevents a smartphone/tablet vendor from allowing their smartphone/tablet from accessing anybody's online store. An Amazon tablet should be able to visit the Apple online store (if they sold Android apps) just as easily as an iPhone should be able to visit the Android marketplace (if they sold iOS apps.) Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force you to only buy software for your laptop from their store. The law has long been clear that this type of market coercion is illegal. The only reason that today's device vendors are still getting away with this is because the threshold for an outcry hasn't yet been passed. But the more stories we read like this, the louder the volume is from the everyday consumer.
geofft 14y ago
You already can't buy books for the Kindle or Nook app via in-app purchase, nor can you pay Dropbox for space. Why is this news when SkyDrive has the same rule? And why doesn't SkyDrive just go "oh", and like everyone else, remove the in-app purchase option?
- Elepsis 14y ago
  From the (much better) Next Web article which I wish had been linked instead: Microsoft has persisted in trying to work out a compromise with Apple, but has thus far failed to come to an agreement. The company offered to remove all subscription options from its application, leaving it a non-revenue generating experience on iOS. The offer was rebuffed. If a service has a subscription option, it seems, and it is not listed in the iOS store, the application cannot, and will not be allowed. That is, unless you are small enough that Apple doesn’t bothers to check. I assume that smaller companies could slip under the radar. (note for transparency: I worked on the SkyDrive team until a few months ago, but don't know the latest details of this situation.)
  - CodeCube 14y ago
    Something that needs a bit of clarification, what do they mean by "offered to remove all subscription options", and "the offer was rebuffed"? Do they mean that they created a new build with the subscription options removed, resubmitted, and had that build rejected? Or do they mean they sent an email to someone at apple and didn't get a response in a timely fashion?
    - thoughtsimple 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure that if you have an iOS application with signups and you have a subscription on your website, you have to have subscriptions available in the iOS app. Microsoft could just do what Dropbox did and allow subscriptions from their app and also allow the same from their website. Dropbox has more flexible options on their website than on their iOS app.
  - geofft 14y ago
goronbjorn 14y ago
This isn't anything new. Apple has enforced this same restriction on numerous app developers and companies before. The only reason for this being "bigger news" is the pre-existing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, or more likely because of Microsoft's PR team.
- smackfu 14y ago
  It's also something that most people don't agree with, so every time it happens, it gets a lot of discussion. Maybe eventually Apple will have some solution that doesn't involve getting 30% for doing nothing.
JBiserkov 14y ago
Apple is NOT acting in the best interest of its customers. The main reason I got an iPod touch was the ease of updating, combined with the presence of Microsoft software I like and use elsewhere - OneNote, Skype, SkyDrive, Photosynth. From the article (emphasis mine): "Microsoft has a new version of the application ready, INCLUDING A KEY FIX THAT RECTIFIES A CRASHING BUG, but cannot get it through."
- jan_g 14y ago
  Yep, that's the reality of app store. Want to push a serious bug fix? Be prepared to wait 2 weeks or more. Could be up to a month, if reviewer decides that your app violates some rule that previous reviewer didn't notice or didn't care about.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    If it's a serious bug, you can request an "Expedited App Review"[1] that can take between hours or a couple days. If you abuse it though, I think they'll ignore you from that point on :) [1]: https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/index.html https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/i...
mbreese 14y ago
The title is incorrect. Apple isn't blocking SkyDrive from the App Store. Microsoft has decided that they didn't want Apple taking a 30% cut of revenue generated from iOS devices. This is a fine distinction. Like it or not, Apple controls their ecosystem, and your choices are to either play by their rules or not play at all. Microsoft decided that they didn't want to play by those rules, so they took their ball and went home. I can't say that I blame them, but don't make it out like Microsoft is getting any kind of special scrutiny. It is worth noting though that both Dropbox and Box.net have found ways to live within the iOS ecosystem.
- NZ_Matt 14y ago
  How is the title incorrect? Microsoft have the app waiting for approval, which Apple has blocked.
- adrian_pop 14y ago
  There is a set of rules that Apple is applying to all developers. Why they don't apply to MS ?
dendory 14y ago
The fact that Apple even refused when Microsoft offered to simply remove the subscription option from the app, is well.. fucking retarded. Shame on you, Apple.
NZ_Matt 14y ago
This will have big implications on Microsoft's plans to release Office for iOS in the new year. It has been reported that to use the apps you'll need an Office 365 subscription, obviously purchased from outside the app store. Apple have probably seen this coming and are drawing a line in the sand now.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  Which probably means Apple is not scared of its competition at all. Otherwise they'd be happy to have Office on their tablets...
lominming 14y ago
If Apple allows in-app purchases freely, what may happen is that every app is a free app, and the first screen is a screen asking you to buy the paid app. I have already experience a similar experience in some apps like NYT where basically you need in-app subscription. As a user, I felt that I was faked into thinking that it is a free app. On the other hand, it is also crazy for Apple to prevent any sort of in-app upgrades.
chj 14y ago
amazon + MS + dropbox should just bring the case to justice department.
- delinka 14y ago
  Why? Because there's no competition from the "leading mobile phone OS?" Because you can't get access to these companies' services on other devices? Because Apple has a de facto monopoly?
  - chj 14y ago
    One way to look at: as amazon customer, you can't buy ebook from kindle iOS app. Amazon has a simpler one-click payment system, why should they give 30% (which is almost all they are making) to apple for a inferior service?
    - greedo 14y ago
      Apple is not blocking you from purchasing an ebook via Kindle's app. Amazon has chosen not to include this functionality in their app because they don't want to lose money on sales through their app.
      - chj 14y ago
        So do you really think Amazon has a choice?
        greedo 14y ago
        Amazon is choosing to sell via iOS devices. They did fine before the iPhone was released, and I doubt having to forgo the sales via IAP is making a dent in their non-existent profits... Here's a game. Go to Amazon, tell them you want to become one of their merchants. See how far they'll negotiate with you regarding their cut of your sales... iOS is Apple's platform, just as much as Amazon is a platform for sales. Apple has just as much right to control it via rules and fees as Amazon does.
nicholassmith 14y ago
In general I think that Apple should be saying to developers, 'we want our 30%' because it's their store, their revenue stream and it's pretty transparent, but when this kicked off with Dropbox I said it then, it's really stupid. If it's a case that they're selling the subscription through the device then fine, take the 30% charge, however if it's a case that the subscription is setup outside of the iOS store, off the device then Apple needs to go "oh well". EDIT: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It sounds like Microsoft has removed the subs options from their app and resubmitted it to Apple who have yet to approve it, not denied it. It sounds like Microsoft have leaked that they were waiting in some attempt to look like Apple is picking on them.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  That's the way it works though - I have a subscription to DropBox that I setup outside the iOS store, and I'm pretty certain that Apple didn't get 30% of that subscription fee.
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    Except, Apple set up an agreement with Dropbox to do that, but apparently they're refusing to let Microsoft do it with Skydrive.
    - weiran 14y ago
      Remember we're getting one side of the story here leaked by Microsoft.
      - nicholassmith 14y ago
        True, it could be Microsoft spinning it to make Apple look bad, they might be trying to push against the rules, so if I turn out to be off the mark I'll mea culpa.
    - delinka 14y ago
      Do you have a reference for an agreement between Apple and Dropbox? My take on the whole thing is that Dropbox is operating exactly by the rules by not offering an IAP option nor link to outside subscription purchase from within the app. Poof, approved.
batgaijin 14y ago
In all honesty I don't get these arguments. Why does it matter when Apple is fucking Dropbox/Microsoft? Am I supposed to be angry at Apple? I hate Apple for a lot of reasons, but the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. Why on earth should I extend my empathy like that?
- spenvo 14y ago
  >the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. The rules apply to developers of all sizes--not just Microsoft. This is Apple being greedy--which is fine in principle. But as a heavily-invested Apple customer, I "cheer" for the Apple ecosystem (and the company's fair dealings with developers) because I'd like continued priority and investment given to this platform. That's my angle, and Apple seems to be working against it. I find it offensive (as I'm sure many developers do) that Apple claims the right to revenue made from outside of its App ecosystem.
venomsnake 14y ago
Allow users to run unsigned code if they so desire. What is the problem. if you want curated store - use it. If you don't want this obtain your software however you desire.
- delinka 14y ago
  And when Uncle Bob downloads malware, has his bank account drained by unscrupulous developers, takes his phone to a "Genius" to fix the problem, he's going to blame Apple for his trouble. Let's do the old car analogy: if Mercedes tells you the car requires high octane fuel, but you insist on putting in cheaper fuel, is Mercedes going to repair the resulting damage under warranty? Certainly not. So Apple decides to create/craft/curate a certain user experience for their customers. And they create rules to enforce it because they don't want to be responsible for their screw-ups (like jailbreaking and installing malware) - if you don't like it, why are you buying Apple's products?
NZ_Matt 14y ago
Perhaps Microsoft should start charging Apple 30% for every song sold on iTunes for Windows.
89a 14y ago
How is this a surprise, it's right there in the app store documents. This is Microsoft complaining they should be except from the rules just because they're big. This is the beauty of the App Store, doesn't matter how big you are you still get treated the same as the little guy
olgeni 14y ago
It's the "poor kid that won the lottery" syndrome: doing things just because they can, hoarding cash, making up stupid rules to see how far people will comply, testing developer's patience at each turn, fearing that the miracle machine might eventually run out of steam if they stop sacrificing expansion slots to the almighty gods of dumbed down design. It is mildly amusing if your livelihood does not depend 100% on them and you still have interesting platforms to work on (not necessarily mobile). Apple will hopefully grow out of it and become an adult company: less bullshit, less "geniuses" at the bar, less patronizing. Google, which is supposed to be a competitor, still takes 30% and you still don't even get a search box in the in-app purchases list...
- chj 14y ago
  at least Google doesn't force you to distribute apps on their store.
mtgx 14y ago
Next you'll tell me Microsoft will complain about not being able to put IE10 on iOS. Wouldn't that be ironic?
programminggeek 14y ago
Nothing is stopping Microsoft from having a web presence that people use to purchase things at. Apple might be going a bit overboard to force their payment system as the "one true payment system", but it's also a lot better for the average user in most cases, which is what Apple builds for. They don't support many corner cases. Android does. Nobody is forcing you to have an app on iOS right? Also, the process for setting up a dev account on Apple is far more pleasant than for the Windows 8 store. Also, Microsoft won't even let you publish Metro apps outside of the MSFT store, so who are they to complain about vendor lock in or requiring a cut of purchases and such?
JimmaDaRustla 14y ago
Hate it, but can see why its happening. What if Apple offered the purchasing of services THROUGH their app store? Then there is this clear understanding that Apple made the sale and they actually had to play a part in the transaction. I still would think 30% would be too much, maybe 15-20.
delinka 14y ago
"Rebuffed"? I suspect it was more like "ignored." Because Apple won't negotiate on the rules. It's their playground, and the rules are posted plainly. So you submitted an app (or an update to one) with a feature not allowed by Apple and got rejected. Now, you remove the offending functionality and resubmit ... and they'll get to you when they're good-n-ready. And they'll take their dear sweet time because we can't have you overlooking the rules again (or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewer...) So why doesn't Microsoft just market the hell out of SkyDrive? "Use it. Love it. Sign up at skydrive.live.com. And now, access your SkyDrive subscription on your favorite mobile devices: Windows, Android and iOS." Don't try to sell SkyDrive on Apple's App Store, just provide "free access" to the subscription. Plenty other services do exactly this.
robomartin 14y ago
In most of these discussions there's a question about the fairness of Apple's 30% cut. Are they charging too much? Most might just look at the cost of a credit card transaction (~3%) and think that 30% is just crazy. That, of course, is the wrong way to look at it. The act of selling a product costs far more than the credit card processing fees. This is particularly true for physical products that you have to store and ship. The best comparison I can make is to take a look at having Amazon sell your product. Here are the fees: http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm In very rough strokes, fees range from about 5% to 50% of the transaction total, depending on the cost and nature of the items sold. Clearly Apple could charge a lot less for higher valued items. Right? The flat 30% cut starts to become excessive at some point. If I understand Amazon's pricing for selling your software product the two services compare as follows (assuming no shipping, only downloads): price Apple Amazon % of Amazon take 1.00 0.30 2.49 249% 5.00 1.50 3.09 62% 10.00 3.00 3.84 38% 15.00 4.50 4.59 31% 20.00 6.00 5.34 27% 25.00 7.50 6.09 24% 30.00 9.00 6.84 23% 35.00 10.50 7.59 22% 40.00 12.00 8.34 21% 45.00 13.50 9.09 20% 50.00 15.00 9.84 20% 75.00 22.50 13.59 18% 100.00 30.00 17.34 17% In this possibly contrived comparison it'd cost about the same to sell your product through Amazon up to about $15 to $20. After that Amazon charges you less. For low price items Apple is ridiculously cheap. Can you do better if you handle your own transactions, fulfillment, hosting, customer service, fraud/loss prevention, etc. Possibly. It certainly doesn't get down to the raw ~3% you pay for CC transactions. My guess is that a highly optimized operation might be able to achieve 5% to 25% depending on the nature of the product and sale price. Clearly selling items below about $10 requires a highly optimized operation with huge volume or your are going to loose your shirt --and more-- no matter how you approach it (keep that in mind when selling something for a buck on eBay).

178 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

Seems only fair, everybody else has to pay 30% on purchases made in-app, Microsoft should too. The only thing worse than a stupid rule is a stupid rule that some people get excluded from.

nanodeath 14y ago
I think the main problem they point out is if I get x gigs of space for 2 years, for which I pay monthly, and then switch to Android after 6 months, Apple still gets paid 30% for each the remaining 18 months. Which sort of makes sense, and sort of doesn't...
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  Are there other in-app purchases that can leave the iDevice? I'm wondering about precedent.
  - smackfu 14y ago
    Dropbox.
hdra 14y ago
The fact that everyone has to pay 30% for putting a link to their subscription sign up itself is not fair. The TNW article goes more into more detail on this.
- megablast 14y ago
  It kind of is/kind of isn't. Without this rule, it makes it easy to circumvent Apples payment altogether. And of course, there are some things that Apple should be be getting 30% for. It is not black and white. I wonder how Microsoft will handle this in their store? I would be surprised if they did not copy Apples model, as they already have.
  - hdra 14y ago
    From the original article: Our iOS app “Files Pro” [Link] includes support for SkyDrive using the official Live SDK. A few days ago our last update was rejected by the Apple review team because of the presence of the “Sign Up” button in the Live login authorisation page. According to Apple the presence of this button violates their guideline that[quote from Apple guideline]: and also: My iOS app “CloudMusic for SkyDrive” utilizes LiveConnect SDK for iOS to stream user’s audio content to iDevice. I have a “Sign In” button that invokes LiveConnectClient “login” method which shows Windows Live sign-in page in UIWebView. The app was rejected by Apple review team saying that “the log in interface must be native and not a link or a web view.” Is there any other way to login to SkyDrive? So, my main problem is not just about payment(even though I think it is a problem as well), its more about how Apple wants to get a cut from every single little thing that have the possibility of making money from developers to the point of being [almost] unreasonable. ah, btw, Windows Store allows 3rd party transaction processor. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/jj193599.aspx/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/jj19359...
    - bitcartel 14y ago
      Very frustrating for developers who get caught in the middle. Same thing happened with Dropbox a while ago, where developers had to wait for a new SDK which was safe for the App Store, before being able to update their apps.

nsxwolf 14y ago

MS can get around this the way Amazon has and redirect users to the web site. Or, I'm sure they can work something special out with Apple - they are Microsoft, after all. BTW, Microsoft has done a real bang-up job with SkyDrive. The free versions of Word and Excel are fantastic, and even scroll with native app like speed in the browser. SO much better than the horrible code base they use for the Word/Excel viewers in Outlook Web Access and Sharepoint.

hdra 14y ago
Read the linked TNW article, they are not even allowed to do that. Not even the 3rd party developers using the Skydrive SDK is allowed to do that.
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  Hmm, I stand corrected. That's quite a pickle there for Microsoft.

pablasso 14y ago

Well, it may be a sucky rule, but it's been there for a long time. They can't say they're surprised.

crazygringo 14y ago

So I'm very curious if anyone can help see a "intuitive fair line" better than I can (because I can't find one). On the one hand, it makes perfect sense Apple wants 30% on apps. They run the store. On the other hand, it seems like Amazon should be able to sell books, Dropbox should be able to sell space, etc., without paying 30% -- otherwise it's financially impossible. But if you allow apps to sell content within without paying 30%, then all of a sudden all apps become free, selling "upgrading functionality" within, and the app store is no longer viable for Apple. You can't even make a rule like "reselling 3rd party content is exempt from the fee", because apps will claim additional functionality as 3rd-party. You can't make a rule that "content accessible on other devices is exempt from the fee", because gamemakers will just make their in-game purchases accessible on the Android version too, or something. Can anyone think of a clear, unambiguous rule that would allow things like Dropbox, Skydrive, Amazon, etc. to get around the 30% fee, but without allowing loopholes that would allow everyone to skirt it? I swear my brain thinks there's a distinction, but I can't figure out what it is.

JuDue 14y ago
This is a good point. Also wondering what's stopping MS from doing down the DropBox path and not allowing purchases on iOS.
- hdra 14y ago
  Microsoft offered to remove all paid subscription option, but the compromise was rejected.
  - JuDue 14y ago
    Well who really knows how two IT giants communicate. There is little to stop MS from expecting the DropBox model to be accepted - it depends what else they are asking. We simply don't know the details of all this, beyond the MS focused blog item. MS want Skydrive and their own mobile/tablet App prowess recognised.. .. and here they are David compromising with Goliath!
  - jemeshsu 14y ago

iamtherockstar 14y ago

I work on the Ubuntu One iOS team. Our apps have this same issue. I think it really affects user experience, because you can't allow sign up for premium features, but you also can't even mention those premium features (say, with a link to where you can find out more). If you don't already know about them, you're not going to find out in the app.

taligent 14y ago
Weird. Because Evernote showcases premium features.
- hboon 14y ago
  Because Evernote allows users to buy them through iOS in-app purchases.
  - josteink 14y ago
    Because Evernote is willing to pay the Apple extortion fee for something which isn't costing Apple anything.
geofft 14y ago
You can't link to anything, but I believe you can verbally describe them and that's fine.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  I think you can even point out the url in plain text, like "Subscribe by visiting www.myapp.com/iphone/subscribe" (i.e., no link - user has to type that in Safari herself)
spullara 14y ago
You could, you just choose not to pay Apple.

hdra 14y ago

Here is the linked TNW article that goes into more details of the problem: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at-the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps-integrating-the-microsoft-service/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a... I am not associated with TNW, I just think that everyone should read it as it seems like there are quite a lot of questions regarding things that has been covered in the article.

mynegation 14y ago

I buy stuff from Amazon on the desktop computer and read it on iPad and iPhone Kindle apps. So far works great for me. Dropbox is even easier, you really need to worry about paying for premium once a year, if that, more like once in five years when your credit card expires, so this is a non-issue. In both cases I downloaded apps because I used desktop versions extensively not vice versa. I wonder if Apple's cut is a big deterrent for mobile-first strategy that was recently discussed in Fred Wilson's post that appeared on HN.

akandiah 14y ago

Original article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-at-the-30-fee-third-party-developers-feel-the-heat-as-apple-blocks-apps-integrating-the-microsoft-service http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-balks-a...

beedogs 14y ago

Thank god for jailbreaking. Apple's devices get a lot more useful when you don't have to play by their idiotic rules.

meaty 14y ago
Just buy a different device. Jailbreaking isn't the best option as one day, they might just find a way of making it impossible.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  It is kinda impossible today (compared to golden days of iPhone OS 3.1 - I must've freed a good 50 iPod touches back then (for my friends)!). You have to wait a few months after any major or even point release, and jailbreaking new devices might take up to 7 months (I think that was the case for iPad 3)!
- wladimir 14y ago
  Not only that, but by buying from Apple you are subsidizing the practice anyway, so that next time they can develop an even harder to crack version. Aside from that it's a boondoggle, an economic waste to build protections just to crack them. Better to buy hardware from vendors that allow (or tolerates, such as Samsung) rooting and installing custom firmwares.
addlepate 14y ago
It introduces drawbacks of its own. I think the best idea is to decide how willing you are to put up with Apple's guff, and then use that to guide whether you even get an iPhone at all. They design their products to be used in certain ways and going outside of that is doable, but annoying. Also, jailbreaking doesn't address this problem at all. Unless you think MS will put out a SkyDrive app that you can get from Cydia or whatever, which they won't.

Karunamon 14y ago

This kind of garbage is eventually going to attract legislative scrutiny. The iPhone is the single most popular mobile device in at least the USA, and Apple has a complete monopoly on applications for that device.

alayne 14y ago
Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly in the smartphone market.
danso 14y ago
Android systems are no slouch. I think legislative measures should be a last resort
- Karunamon 14y ago
  legislative measures should be a last resort Indeed. I don't see any other possible course of action to resolve these abusive business practices.. do you?
horacio 14y ago
Indeed it will certainly attract needed scrutiny. Both by the lawmakers and by the courts. The presumption by all of these vendors who operate their own app store is that they are legally protected in tying their hardware product (their smartphone, for example) to their online store. But there is a history in both the written law and from the courts that makes these 'company store' policies illegal. There is no technical reason whatsoever that prevents a smartphone/tablet vendor from allowing their smartphone/tablet from accessing anybody's online store. An Amazon tablet should be able to visit the Apple online store (if they sold Android apps) just as easily as an iPhone should be able to visit the Android marketplace (if they sold iOS apps.) Imagine the outcry if Chevy could force you to only buy tires or gas for your Malibu from their store. Or if Mattel could force you to only buy outfits for your kid's Barbie doll from their store. Or if Dell could force you to only buy software for your laptop from their store. The law has long been clear that this type of market coercion is illegal. The only reason that today's device vendors are still getting away with this is because the threshold for an outcry hasn't yet been passed. But the more stories we read like this, the louder the volume is from the everyday consumer.

geofft 14y ago

You already can't buy books for the Kindle or Nook app via in-app purchase, nor can you pay Dropbox for space. Why is this news when SkyDrive has the same rule? And why doesn't SkyDrive just go "oh", and like everyone else, remove the in-app purchase option?

Elepsis 14y ago
From the (much better) Next Web article which I wish had been linked instead: Microsoft has persisted in trying to work out a compromise with Apple, but has thus far failed to come to an agreement. The company offered to remove all subscription options from its application, leaving it a non-revenue generating experience on iOS. The offer was rebuffed. If a service has a subscription option, it seems, and it is not listed in the iOS store, the application cannot, and will not be allowed. That is, unless you are small enough that Apple doesn’t bothers to check. I assume that smaller companies could slip under the radar. (note for transparency: I worked on the SkyDrive team until a few months ago, but don't know the latest details of this situation.)
- CodeCube 14y ago
  Something that needs a bit of clarification, what do they mean by "offered to remove all subscription options", and "the offer was rebuffed"? Do they mean that they created a new build with the subscription options removed, resubmitted, and had that build rejected? Or do they mean they sent an email to someone at apple and didn't get a response in a timely fashion?
  - thoughtsimple 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure that if you have an iOS application with signups and you have a subscription on your website, you have to have subscriptions available in the iOS app. Microsoft could just do what Dropbox did and allow subscriptions from their app and also allow the same from their website. Dropbox has more flexible options on their website than on their iOS app.
- geofft 14y ago

goronbjorn 14y ago

This isn't anything new. Apple has enforced this same restriction on numerous app developers and companies before. The only reason for this being "bigger news" is the pre-existing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft, or more likely because of Microsoft's PR team.

smackfu 14y ago
It's also something that most people don't agree with, so every time it happens, it gets a lot of discussion. Maybe eventually Apple will have some solution that doesn't involve getting 30% for doing nothing.

JBiserkov 14y ago

Apple is NOT acting in the best interest of its customers. The main reason I got an iPod touch was the ease of updating, combined with the presence of Microsoft software I like and use elsewhere - OneNote, Skype, SkyDrive, Photosynth. From the article (emphasis mine): "Microsoft has a new version of the application ready, INCLUDING A KEY FIX THAT RECTIFIES A CRASHING BUG, but cannot get it through."

jan_g 14y ago
Yep, that's the reality of app store. Want to push a serious bug fix? Be prepared to wait 2 weeks or more. Could be up to a month, if reviewer decides that your app violates some rule that previous reviewer didn't notice or didn't care about.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  If it's a serious bug, you can request an "Expedited App Review"[1] that can take between hours or a couple days. If you abuse it though, I think they'll ignore you from that point on :) [1]: https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/index.html https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/i...

mbreese 14y ago

The title is incorrect. Apple isn't blocking SkyDrive from the App Store. Microsoft has decided that they didn't want Apple taking a 30% cut of revenue generated from iOS devices. This is a fine distinction. Like it or not, Apple controls their ecosystem, and your choices are to either play by their rules or not play at all. Microsoft decided that they didn't want to play by those rules, so they took their ball and went home. I can't say that I blame them, but don't make it out like Microsoft is getting any kind of special scrutiny. It is worth noting though that both Dropbox and Box.net have found ways to live within the iOS ecosystem.

NZ_Matt 14y ago
How is the title incorrect? Microsoft have the app waiting for approval, which Apple has blocked.
adrian_pop 14y ago
There is a set of rules that Apple is applying to all developers. Why they don't apply to MS ?

dendory 14y ago

The fact that Apple even refused when Microsoft offered to simply remove the subscription option from the app, is well.. fucking retarded. Shame on you, Apple.

NZ_Matt 14y ago

This will have big implications on Microsoft's plans to release Office for iOS in the new year. It has been reported that to use the apps you'll need an Office 365 subscription, obviously purchased from outside the app store. Apple have probably seen this coming and are drawing a line in the sand now.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
Which probably means Apple is not scared of its competition at all. Otherwise they'd be happy to have Office on their tablets...

lominming 14y ago

If Apple allows in-app purchases freely, what may happen is that every app is a free app, and the first screen is a screen asking you to buy the paid app. I have already experience a similar experience in some apps like NYT where basically you need in-app subscription. As a user, I felt that I was faked into thinking that it is a free app. On the other hand, it is also crazy for Apple to prevent any sort of in-app upgrades.

chj 14y ago

amazon + MS + dropbox should just bring the case to justice department.

delinka 14y ago
Why? Because there's no competition from the "leading mobile phone OS?" Because you can't get access to these companies' services on other devices? Because Apple has a de facto monopoly?
- chj 14y ago
  One way to look at: as amazon customer, you can't buy ebook from kindle iOS app. Amazon has a simpler one-click payment system, why should they give 30% (which is almost all they are making) to apple for a inferior service?
  - greedo 14y ago
    Apple is not blocking you from purchasing an ebook via Kindle's app. Amazon has chosen not to include this functionality in their app because they don't want to lose money on sales through their app.
    - chj 14y ago
      So do you really think Amazon has a choice?
      - greedo 14y ago
        Amazon is choosing to sell via iOS devices. They did fine before the iPhone was released, and I doubt having to forgo the sales via IAP is making a dent in their non-existent profits... Here's a game. Go to Amazon, tell them you want to become one of their merchants. See how far they'll negotiate with you regarding their cut of your sales... iOS is Apple's platform, just as much as Amazon is a platform for sales. Apple has just as much right to control it via rules and fees as Amazon does.

nicholassmith 14y ago

In general I think that Apple should be saying to developers, 'we want our 30%' because it's their store, their revenue stream and it's pretty transparent, but when this kicked off with Dropbox I said it then, it's really stupid. If it's a case that they're selling the subscription through the device then fine, take the 30% charge, however if it's a case that the subscription is setup outside of the iOS store, off the device then Apple needs to go "oh well". EDIT: mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It sounds like Microsoft has removed the subs options from their app and resubmitted it to Apple who have yet to approve it, not denied it. It sounds like Microsoft have leaked that they were waiting in some attempt to look like Apple is picking on them.

ghshephard 14y ago
That's the way it works though - I have a subscription to DropBox that I setup outside the iOS store, and I'm pretty certain that Apple didn't get 30% of that subscription fee.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Except, Apple set up an agreement with Dropbox to do that, but apparently they're refusing to let Microsoft do it with Skydrive.
  - weiran 14y ago
    Remember we're getting one side of the story here leaked by Microsoft.
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      True, it could be Microsoft spinning it to make Apple look bad, they might be trying to push against the rules, so if I turn out to be off the mark I'll mea culpa.
  - delinka 14y ago
    Do you have a reference for an agreement between Apple and Dropbox? My take on the whole thing is that Dropbox is operating exactly by the rules by not offering an IAP option nor link to outside subscription purchase from within the app. Poof, approved.

batgaijin 14y ago

In all honesty I don't get these arguments. Why does it matter when Apple is fucking Dropbox/Microsoft? Am I supposed to be angry at Apple? I hate Apple for a lot of reasons, but the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. Why on earth should I extend my empathy like that?

spenvo 14y ago
>the idea they should be lenient to other large corporations is hilarious. The rules apply to developers of all sizes--not just Microsoft. This is Apple being greedy--which is fine in principle. But as a heavily-invested Apple customer, I "cheer" for the Apple ecosystem (and the company's fair dealings with developers) because I'd like continued priority and investment given to this platform. That's my angle, and Apple seems to be working against it. I find it offensive (as I'm sure many developers do) that Apple claims the right to revenue made from outside of its App ecosystem.

venomsnake 14y ago

Allow users to run unsigned code if they so desire. What is the problem. if you want curated store - use it. If you don't want this obtain your software however you desire.

delinka 14y ago
And when Uncle Bob downloads malware, has his bank account drained by unscrupulous developers, takes his phone to a "Genius" to fix the problem, he's going to blame Apple for his trouble. Let's do the old car analogy: if Mercedes tells you the car requires high octane fuel, but you insist on putting in cheaper fuel, is Mercedes going to repair the resulting damage under warranty? Certainly not. So Apple decides to create/craft/curate a certain user experience for their customers. And they create rules to enforce it because they don't want to be responsible for their screw-ups (like jailbreaking and installing malware) - if you don't like it, why are you buying Apple's products?

NZ_Matt 14y ago

Perhaps Microsoft should start charging Apple 30% for every song sold on iTunes for Windows.

89a 14y ago

How is this a surprise, it's right there in the app store documents. This is Microsoft complaining they should be except from the rules just because they're big. This is the beauty of the App Store, doesn't matter how big you are you still get treated the same as the little guy

olgeni 14y ago

It's the "poor kid that won the lottery" syndrome: doing things just because they can, hoarding cash, making up stupid rules to see how far people will comply, testing developer's patience at each turn, fearing that the miracle machine might eventually run out of steam if they stop sacrificing expansion slots to the almighty gods of dumbed down design. It is mildly amusing if your livelihood does not depend 100% on them and you still have interesting platforms to work on (not necessarily mobile). Apple will hopefully grow out of it and become an adult company: less bullshit, less "geniuses" at the bar, less patronizing. Google, which is supposed to be a competitor, still takes 30% and you still don't even get a search box in the in-app purchases list...

chj 14y ago
at least Google doesn't force you to distribute apps on their store.

mtgx 14y ago

Next you'll tell me Microsoft will complain about not being able to put IE10 on iOS. Wouldn't that be ironic?

programminggeek 14y ago

Nothing is stopping Microsoft from having a web presence that people use to purchase things at. Apple might be going a bit overboard to force their payment system as the "one true payment system", but it's also a lot better for the average user in most cases, which is what Apple builds for. They don't support many corner cases. Android does. Nobody is forcing you to have an app on iOS right? Also, the process for setting up a dev account on Apple is far more pleasant than for the Windows 8 store. Also, Microsoft won't even let you publish Metro apps outside of the MSFT store, so who are they to complain about vendor lock in or requiring a cut of purchases and such?

JimmaDaRustla 14y ago

Hate it, but can see why its happening. What if Apple offered the purchasing of services THROUGH their app store? Then there is this clear understanding that Apple made the sale and they actually had to play a part in the transaction. I still would think 30% would be too much, maybe 15-20.

delinka 14y ago

"Rebuffed"? I suspect it was more like "ignored." Because Apple won't negotiate on the rules. It's their playground, and the rules are posted plainly. So you submitted an app (or an update to one) with a feature not allowed by Apple and got rejected. Now, you remove the offending functionality and resubmit ... and they'll get to you when they're good-n-ready. And they'll take their dear sweet time because we can't have you overlooking the rules again (or trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the reviewer...) So why doesn't Microsoft just market the hell out of SkyDrive? "Use it. Love it. Sign up at skydrive.live.com. And now, access your SkyDrive subscription on your favorite mobile devices: Windows, Android and iOS." Don't try to sell SkyDrive on Apple's App Store, just provide "free access" to the subscription. Plenty other services do exactly this.

robomartin 14y ago

In most of these discussions there's a question about the fairness of Apple's 30% cut. Are they charging too much? Most might just look at the cost of a credit card transaction (~3%) and think that 30% is just crazy. That, of course, is the wrong way to look at it. The act of selling a product costs far more than the credit card processing fees. This is particularly true for physical products that you have to store and ship. The best comparison I can make is to take a look at having Amazon sell your product. Here are the fees: http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm http://www.amazonservices.com/selling/pricing.htm In very rough strokes, fees range from about 5% to 50% of the transaction total, depending on the cost and nature of the items sold. Clearly Apple could charge a lot less for higher valued items. Right? The flat 30% cut starts to become excessive at some point. If I understand Amazon's pricing for selling your software product the two services compare as follows (assuming no shipping, only downloads): price Apple Amazon % of Amazon take 1.00 0.30 2.49 249% 5.00 1.50 3.09 62% 10.00 3.00 3.84 38% 15.00 4.50 4.59 31% 20.00 6.00 5.34 27% 25.00 7.50 6.09 24% 30.00 9.00 6.84 23% 35.00 10.50 7.59 22% 40.00 12.00 8.34 21% 45.00 13.50 9.09 20% 50.00 15.00 9.84 20% 75.00 22.50 13.59 18% 100.00 30.00 17.34 17% In this possibly contrived comparison it'd cost about the same to sell your product through Amazon up to about $15 to $20. After that Amazon charges you less. For low price items Apple is ridiculously cheap. Can you do better if you handle your own transactions, fulfillment, hosting, customer service, fraud/loss prevention, etc. Possibly. It certainly doesn't get down to the raw ~3% you pay for CC transactions. My guess is that a highly optimized operation might be able to achieve 5% to 25% depending on the nature of the product and sale price. Clearly selling items below about $10 requires a highly optimized operation with huge volume or your are going to loose your shirt --and more-- no matter how you approach it (keep that in mind when selling something for a buck on eBay).