
Apple blocking SkyDrive from iOS store, wants cut of revenue - recoiledsnake
http://microsoft-news.com/apple-blocking-skydrive-from-ios-store-wants-cut-of-revenue/
======
crazygringo
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.

~~~
drewcrawford
I think the problem is in how the question is framed. The App Store has always
been revenue neutral [1]. It's not a profit center for Apple. It's not about
"getting their cut". It's about having one billing statement to look at. It's
about eliminating shady billing tactics a la gym memberships. It's about
keeping your address out of some developer's mailing list.

You'd be surprised about the extent of this problem. I get e-mails all the
time from people who are worried that they have a monthly payment for my app,
for example. There are just an awful lot of people who don't "get" software at
all and derive real value from simplified one-party billing.

So if you start from the premise that billing for iOS apps has to be brain-
dead simple, we arrive at the present rule: any payment that looks like it
happens on an iPhone must [2] run through IAP at whatever rate Apple can break
even. If your payment collection process consists of people using their
fingers on the screen of an iPhone, then it is potentially confusable with IAP
by Grandpa and he might get mad at Apple; this is unacceptable. But monetizing
your pizza ordering app by handing money to a pizza delivery guy who shows up
at your house is not confusable, so it's A-OK.

Now, it's perfectly debatable whether or not consumer confusion is really that
big of a problem, or a problem big enough to justify the negative
externalities of solving it. But if it is, then the result follows: the
solution is to run all the billing through a break-even single party. If you
accept the premise, then the rule that is fairest and best and also solves the
problem is the rule that we already have.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where the economics of Dropbox,
Skydrive, Amazon et al seemingly don't allow enough profit margin to pay
Apple's overhead to process payments. But I'm not really sure who is to blame
for that: the consumers, for being confused about billing; Apple, for trying
to fix it for them; Skydrive etc. for not creating a two-tiered pricing
structure to charge IAP customers at 30% more; or consumers again for being
unwilling to pay an extra 30% for single-party billing.

[1]
[http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_app_store_runs_...](http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_app_store_runs_just_above_break_even)
[2] there are some exceptions, I'm speaking broadly to make a point

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Potential consumer confusion has nothing to do with the size of Apple's cut or
how it is structured.

Clearly, a 30% cut is fair for the average $1.5 purchase because it includes
fees for payment processing and fixed cost per app.

But Apple will have to decide whether or not they want people to sell more
expensive stuff on their platform. Taking a 30% cut on a $100 purchase is not
economically viable and it is unnecessary if the goal is to avoid consumer
confusion.

They could just charge 50 cents + 5%

~~~
drewcrawford
> Taking a 30% cut on a $100 purchase is not economically viable

The market for a $100 app isn't very large, and that price point is also a
target for fraud / scams / accidental purchase complaints. This risk is offset
by additional review scrutiny, but the cost for that additional scrutiny is
amortized over a small number of potential customers.

The result of all this is that $100 purchases are expensive for Apple to run,
and Apple as a rational actor should discourage them. I wouldn't be surprised
to learn that the whole $50+ market runs at a loss that is covered by the
cheaper apps.

~~~
chj
Even for a $20 item 30% cut is not acceptable either, considering what Apple
actually did is simply app hosting + payment processing. App Store did a
really bad job on app discovery and promotion, so I don't think they deserve
anything on marketing. However, they can charge developers for being featured
on the front page.

~~~
Terretta
> _App Store did a really bad job on app discovery and promotion_

You think most app buyers found their apps outside the app store? Unlike folks
reading HN or tech sites and trying new apps thanks to app launch news, the
normals I know find their apps _only_ within the app store (other than the
occasional app roundup in a mainstream printed magazine).

If you look at the CC processing industry, ranging from 5% fees for the most
basic service (transaction + cc + merchant + bank) to 15% fees for an end to
end service that cuts you a check, the 30% to also manage the user
authentication and customer service is a reasonable deal, completely aside
from marketing.

Finally, as a user, I don't want featured apps to be the ones paying to be
featured. Not cool.

~~~
bkmartin
15% for an end to end service? Citation Please! Paypal, Stripe, Braintree and
those guys don't even come close to that. If you are getting charged 5% in
fees in this day and age then you are doing something wrong... at least here
in the USA.

Apple has a cost of no more than 2.5% for credit card fees, and its probably
even a few tenths lower than that. That I will guarantee (seeing as how I have
seen companies in the $5million/year range get that percentage from an end-to-
end provider, and Apple is quite a bit more than that in volume).

What I think is really ridiculous is that they want to charge 30% for
subscription type services. One time app purchases... ok, maybe I can see
that. But for a $5/month or more subscription being bought through there its
absurd and making it more of a pain for the user because the app developer is
forced to break with the single-billing system due to costs. So, simplicity
actually hinders the experience here.

~~~
Terretta
> _Citation Please!_

My company has developed a CC gateway server, and has processed as much as
$80M a year in transactions for a single client. This is a business I've spent
a lot of time in.

Also note that digital goods and physical goods are different categories. A
full service provider of "digital goods only" processing for clients without
merchant accounts charges much more than a company like Paypal, Braintree, or
Stripe, which process for physical goods as well.

------
JBiserkov
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
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
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/i...](https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/appreviewteam/index.html)

------
dendory
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.

------
hdra
Here is the linked TNW article that goes into more details of the problem:
[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-
balks-a...](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/)

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.

------
notatoad
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.

~~~
hdra
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
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
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/jj19359...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/jj193599.aspx/)

~~~
bitcartel
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.

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

~~~
meaty
Just buy a different device. Jailbreaking isn't the best option as one day,
they might just find a way of making it impossible.

~~~
wladimir
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.

------
mynegation
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.

------
Karunamon
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.

~~~
horacio
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.

~~~
Jach
> 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.

Or if Apple could "force" you to only upgrade/fix your laptop at their store?
Or if they could "force" you to develop iPhone apps on a Mac? Or if Tesla
could "force" you to only buy a replacement battery from them?

I can't imagine any of these companies "forcing" these things, however, unless
they're colluding with the government to make alternatives illegal, and then
regulations aren't going to help anyway. They can make things _inconvenient_ ,
which is quite different, and the market has a history of customers going to
the competition when the inconvenience factor is high enough. Why invoke
legislation at all, _especially_ when the market under consideration is
already competitive, which it is with smartphones? (If competition is stagnant
and it's a difficult market to enter, then perhaps you have an argument to use
government power to remove barriers to entry (often caused by the government)
or to level the playing field or to provide incentives to make the market
easier to enter.)

~~~
guessWhy
The expectation that customers should act in a way to basically create the
conditions for a perfectly free market is misguided. Not invoking legislation
just makes things painful for everyone. Sure, I can switch to Android - but
the cost of buying everything again is rather high. Tomorrow I might have to
switch back for similar political reasons.

------
nsxwolf
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
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
Hmm, I stand corrected. That's quite a pickle there for Microsoft.

------
akandiah
Original article: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/11/as-skydrive-
balks-a...](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)

------
robomartin
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>

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).

------
goronbjorn
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
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.

------
geofft
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
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
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
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.

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

------
delinka
"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.

------
olgeni
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
at least Google doesn't force you to distribute apps on their store.

------
batgaijin
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
>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.

------
nicholassmith
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
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
Except, Apple set up an agreement with Dropbox to do that, but apparently
they're refusing to let Microsoft do it with Skydrive.

~~~
weiran
Remember we're getting one side of the story here leaked by Microsoft.

~~~
nicholassmith
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.

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

------
lominming
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.

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

------
JimmaDaRustla
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.

------
programminggeek
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?

------
venomsnake
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
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?

------
mbreese
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
How is the title incorrect? Microsoft have the app waiting for approval, which
Apple has blocked.

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

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

~~~
delinka
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
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
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
So do you really think Amazon has a choice?

~~~
greedo
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.

------
iamtherockstar
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.

~~~
geofft
You can't link to anything, but I believe you can verbally describe them and
that's fine.

~~~
pooriaazimi
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)

------
89a
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

