So MS is some poor company with no money to pay shills now are they? We've seen MS shills on MS before so it's not unprecedented. Is it the largest companies who shill the most or those with the worst record that should be suspected?
Did you not say you were off to cash your MS check?
OK I missed the sarcasm but your logic is not convincing.
Sorry I understood commercial & not Free software. I see your point but attempting to paint what is a negligible first world cost as a major concern for the third world is not going to get much traction.
Given the speciousness of your arguments, you clearly have no idea of the cost of performing your own application delivery and just want to hate on Apple.
Let's see if there is anything behind the hate: Is tax avoidance a good thing for society? If the Tax on in app purchases is less than that for applications or absent, how do you avoid people placing free applications on the appstore with in-app activation? If it is possible to end-run Apple's tax in this manner is it good for iOS in general (I'm talking users, devs & apple). How long will it take for most devs to deliver their apps this way? Did you realize that this was an issue? Do you care?
You can either think a little and answer the questions or just hate on apple for whatever reason blows your whistle.
Nothing is a guarantee, sure but MS' abandon of all that used to be holy in their move to impose touch on clients (Metro), their so far unsuccessful mimicking of a full device integration alienating the VARs that brought them decades of success (Surface), the fact that after years of avoidance MS is at last bringing Office to iOS & Apple's refusal to blink say to me that MS needs Office on iOS more than Apple needs it.
The 30% is a pretext. If, as they are claiming, MS doesn't want to give Apple 30% of the subscription to office365 for all devices that have a browser instead of just for iOS devices, they need only make the in-app Office365 subscription iOS specific or move it out of the app & to the web.
MS is complaining that they want to sell a global subscription to all devices for office365 in-app so it's unfair that Apple take 30% on the portion that isn't for iOS on the iOS Appstore.
My take is that MS is just attempting to perform tax avoidance where they get to chose the most advantageous place for them to pay (or more likely avoid paying) taxes.
Apple's rule is 30% whether directly from the appstore or in-app. If MS is that concerned about giving away money they can limit in-app office365 to being a iOS adapted (& probably doing a better job as Office Mac is compared to Office Win) or just sell office365 on their website.
If Surface is a success the MS store is in for a world of hurt once all the devs figure out that they can push all the distribution costs onto MS yet keep almost all the revenue by making their $99 application a free download from MS & then a $99 in app purchase.
Yes, there will be costs to the devs for using a non-MS billing system but I see a market for people who will undercut each other & cut MS completely out of the loop. The MS store will become a cash sink instead of a profit source & the more it is used the bigger the sink.
Then do not include the possibility to purchase 365 for other platforms in iOS apps. Do it in the web, I'm pretty sure MS already has a website, right? Why is it possible for Amazon & others to do this but not MS? Too challenging to an entity used to getting it's own way ? No means of perverting the process like they did to get their office XML approved by ISO?
Let's wait to see how successful Surface is & how Microsoft deals with the tax avoidance that is sure to be an issue. When devs fill the MS store with free 1G applications that do nothing more initially than point to an external payment processor to be enabled, MS will be sure to be add on restrictions. I get the feeling that any functions enabled through an external payment processor will also need to be downloaded outside the MS store too.
Sure MS will shoulder the cost initially, as they need to try & catch up but I can't see them doing so for very long once their store starts costing them real money & brings them little revenue.
Well then, don't spend the money & stay out of the Apple Appstore which is where the lions share of profits are taking place in the mobile marketplaces. By profits I do not mean Apple's but that of all the devs in the Apple Appstore compared to all the devs in all the others.
There are two expressions that seem to apply: Cutting off your nose to spite your face & you gotta spend money to make money.
In any case, should you decide to avoid spending the princely sum of 1% of your yearly earnings to gain access to Apple's Appstore, please do not whine that you are not making more.
I see this either changing to use the same methods as Apple, Google and Amazon in their stores or becoming a giant drain on MS if Surface ever becomes successful.
Otherwise there is no way for MS from preventing App developers from performing tax avoidance
Commander X is that you? (see the ARS story if you're too clueless) Read my other posts in this subject where I actually had something on-topic & pertinent to say, unlike my mockery of your basement troll boy post...
Irrelevant. You might as well give GM's sales figures and pretend that they give GM weight in negotiations with Apple.
MS's absence from the iOS is now hurting MS more than Apple & runs the risk of giving a rival the market-share necessary to supplant Office much like Office replaced Wordperfect 20 years ago.
Apple moved to demanding the 30% to avoid the appstore becoming a ghost town where most applications were cheap placeholders & the real application functions were purchased in-app where apple would get no cut.
None of the people going "30% for in-app purchases! Oh Noes!!!" have addressed this point.
I hear echoes of the early 90s when Worperfect was the platform of choice & they thought that they didn't have to move to Mac/Windows like MS was doing. A few years later Wordperfect was no longer the platform of choice. If MS continues to be absent on iOS a replacement for Office WILL be found, it just won't be a Microsoft product.
So let these small companies sell their services (aka in-app purchases) directly & see how much that costs them.
Clearly, Apple's 30% cut on apps is reasonable given what app delivery would cost in setup/bandwidth/marketing/... & how it has grown the iOS app pie for everyone participating in it.
Apple is demanding 30% on in-app purchases so that applications as bought in the appstore do not become hollowed out placeholders where the main functions are in-app purchases that Apple get's no part of. No solution to this problem has been proposed by any of those complaining about it. Apple's ban on enterprise appstores is more open to criticism but not the 30% on in-app purchases.
Well then, don't use the Appstore for purchases of services on iDevices as others, like Amazon have. There, problem solved.
At least the Apple Appstore allows me to transfer purchases of applications to 5 other devices so the rest of my family can benefit & I do not need to purchase them multiple times per device so that every user is allowed to use it on the device like in the MS Appstore.
If MS wants to boycott the Appstore over this, let em. Other solutions are already available & gaining acceptance. Much like Wordperfect who thought that their lock on their market was secure from a shift (the move from DOS to graphical environments like Mac & Windows), if they take too long the market lock will have disappeared by the time they wake up.
Attempting to extend much? How about you answer the original question: Show us an equivalent study from an equivalent Dem thinktank or your claims that the Dems are somehow better on this subject are just partisan bullshit.
Touched a nerve did I? Hollywood is majority Dems & voting records & global contributions by members of the *IAAs bear that out. Exceptions do not a rule make & pretending otherwise in the face of facts just undermines your credibility.
Until you or somebody else comes up with an equivalent study from an equivalent Dem thinktank then your claims that the Dems are somehow better on this subject are just partisan bullshit.
Ah, I see where you misunderstood me. The small cancers that I talked about originally are much more than just single cell mutations. The study I read said that when Breast cancer detection got down to around 1mm that many of the growths were spontaneously being suppressed in the control groups. Statistical verification through biopsies in other groups proved that many of these small growths were indeed cancers. The fact that in many cases the growths disappear without treatment shows that the hosts immune systems sometimes successfully recognize them as problems & eliminates them. The reason why some cancers often grow to a certain size before being eliminated by the immune system (& others don't) is a question that is currently a hot research topic.
Thus my original point: Moving the detection size down through TFA's method runs the risk of detecting cancers that the body will eliminate anyway, so just detecting small cancers is insufficient. We need a means of detecting the small cancers that the immune system will not recognize.
Not that great? Ont the subject of being bought by Hollywood, The Dems are demonstrably worse. Hollywood, & all the IAAs give much more to the Dems & you'll never see a similar paper from an equivalent Dem study committee as they clearly know who their owners are.
Slashdot Mirror
So then it does something trivially useful but far from being the full all for the full price. It's still tax avoidance.
So, Apple has no problem with tax avoidance with the current system but you want to change the system to make it possible. I don't see it happening.
You'd have to ask Microsoft. I'm not an expert in intellectual whoredom.
So MS is some poor company with no money to pay shills now are they? We've seen MS shills on MS before so it's not unprecedented. Is it the largest companies who shill the most or those with the worst record that should be suspected?
Did you not say you were off to cash your MS check?
OK I missed the sarcasm but your logic is not convincing.
Sorry I understood commercial & not Free software. I see your point but attempting to paint what is a negligible first world cost as a major concern for the third world is not going to get much traction.
Given the speciousness of your arguments, you clearly have no idea of the cost of performing your own application delivery and just want to hate on Apple.
Let's see if there is anything behind the hate:
Is tax avoidance a good thing for society?
If the Tax on in app purchases is less than that for applications or absent, how do you avoid people placing free applications on the appstore with in-app activation?
If it is possible to end-run Apple's tax in this manner is it good for iOS in general (I'm talking users, devs & apple).
How long will it take for most devs to deliver their apps this way?
Did you realize that this was an issue?
Do you care?
You can either think a little and answer the questions or just hate on apple for whatever reason blows your whistle.
Nothing is a guarantee, sure but MS' abandon of all that used to be holy in their move to impose touch on clients (Metro), their so far unsuccessful mimicking of a full device integration alienating the VARs that brought them decades of success (Surface), the fact that after years of avoidance MS is at last bringing Office to iOS & Apple's refusal to blink say to me that MS needs Office on iOS more than Apple needs it.
The 30% is a pretext. If, as they are claiming, MS doesn't want to give Apple 30% of the subscription to office365 for all devices that have a browser instead of just for iOS devices, they need only make the in-app Office365 subscription iOS specific or move it out of the app & to the web.
Do you have anything pertinent to say there Commander X?
MS is complaining that they want to sell a global subscription to all devices for office365 in-app so it's unfair that Apple take 30% on the portion that isn't for iOS on the iOS Appstore.
My take is that MS is just attempting to perform tax avoidance where they get to chose the most advantageous place for them to pay (or more likely avoid paying) taxes.
Apple's rule is 30% whether directly from the appstore or in-app. If MS is that concerned about giving away money they can limit in-app office365 to being a iOS adapted (& probably doing a better job as Office Mac is compared to Office Win) or just sell office365 on their website.
If Surface is a success the MS store is in for a world of hurt once all the devs figure out that they can push all the distribution costs onto MS yet keep almost all the revenue by making their $99 application a free download from MS & then a $99 in app purchase.
Yes, there will be costs to the devs for using a non-MS billing system but I see a market for people who will undercut each other & cut MS completely out of the loop. The MS store will become a cash sink instead of a profit source & the more it is used the bigger the sink.
Then do not include the possibility to purchase 365 for other platforms in iOS apps. Do it in the web, I'm pretty sure MS already has a website, right? Why is it possible for Amazon & others to do this but not MS? Too challenging to an entity used to getting it's own way ? No means of perverting the process like they did to get their office XML approved by ISO?
Let's wait to see how successful Surface is & how Microsoft deals with the tax avoidance that is sure to be an issue. When devs fill the MS store with free 1G applications that do nothing more initially than point to an external payment processor to be enabled, MS will be sure to be add on restrictions. I get the feeling that any functions enabled through an external payment processor will also need to be downloaded outside the MS store too.
Sure MS will shoulder the cost initially, as they need to try & catch up but I can't see them doing so for very long once their store starts costing them real money & brings them little revenue.
Well then, don't spend the money & stay out of the Apple Appstore which is where the lions share of profits are taking place in the mobile marketplaces. By profits I do not mean Apple's but that of all the devs in the Apple Appstore compared to all the devs in all the others.
There are two expressions that seem to apply: Cutting off your nose to spite your face & you gotta spend money to make money.
In any case, should you decide to avoid spending the princely sum of 1% of your yearly earnings to gain access to Apple's Appstore, please do not whine that you are not making more.
I see this either changing to use the same methods as Apple, Google and Amazon in their stores or becoming a giant drain on MS if Surface ever becomes successful.
Otherwise there is no way for MS from preventing App developers from performing tax avoidance
Commander X is that you? (see the ARS story if you're too clueless)
Read my other posts in this subject where I actually had something on-topic & pertinent to say, unlike my mockery of your basement troll boy post...
Irrelevant. You might as well give GM's sales figures and pretend that they give GM weight in negotiations with Apple.
MS's absence from the iOS is now hurting MS more than Apple & runs the risk of giving a rival the market-share necessary to supplant Office much like Office replaced Wordperfect 20 years ago.
Apple moved to demanding the 30% to avoid the appstore becoming a ghost town where most applications were cheap placeholders & the real application functions were purchased in-app where apple would get no cut.
None of the people going "30% for in-app purchases! Oh Noes!!!" have addressed this point.
I hear echoes of the early 90s when Worperfect was the platform of choice & they thought that they didn't have to move to Mac/Windows like MS was doing. A few years later Wordperfect was no longer the platform of choice. If MS continues to be absent on iOS a replacement for Office WILL be found, it just won't be a Microsoft product.
So let these small companies sell their services (aka in-app purchases) directly & see how much that costs them.
Clearly, Apple's 30% cut on apps is reasonable given what app delivery would cost in setup/bandwidth/marketing/... & how it has grown the iOS app pie for everyone participating in it.
Apple is demanding 30% on in-app purchases so that applications as bought in the appstore do not become hollowed out placeholders where the main functions are in-app purchases that Apple get's no part of. No solution to this problem has been proposed by any of those complaining about it. Apple's ban on enterprise appstores is more open to criticism but not the 30% on in-app purchases.
Well then, don't use the Appstore for purchases of services on iDevices as others, like Amazon have. There, problem solved.
At least the Apple Appstore allows me to transfer purchases of applications to 5 other devices so the rest of my family can benefit & I do not need to purchase them multiple times per device so that every user is allowed to use it on the device like in the MS Appstore.
If MS wants to boycott the Appstore over this, let em. Other solutions are already available & gaining acceptance. Much like Wordperfect who thought that their lock on their market was secure from a shift (the move from DOS to graphical environments like Mac & Windows), if they take too long the market lock will have disappeared by the time they wake up.
Your post leads credence to my observation that MS employs astroturfers to try & influence debate on /. but that it isn't working well...
Why not use the word cowering or is that just too transparently anti-military for the axe-grinding author?
Attempting to extend much? How about you answer the original question: Show us an equivalent study from an equivalent Dem thinktank or your claims that the Dems are somehow better on this subject are just partisan bullshit.
Touched a nerve did I? Hollywood is majority Dems & voting records & global contributions by members of the *IAAs bear that out. Exceptions do not a rule make & pretending otherwise in the face of facts just undermines your credibility.
Until you or somebody else comes up with an equivalent study from an equivalent Dem thinktank then your claims that the Dems are somehow better on this subject are just partisan bullshit.
Ah, I see where you misunderstood me. The small cancers that I talked about originally are much more than just single cell mutations. The study I read said that when Breast cancer detection got down to around 1mm that many of the growths were spontaneously being suppressed in the control groups. Statistical verification through biopsies in other groups proved that many of these small growths were indeed cancers. The fact that in many cases the growths disappear without treatment shows that the hosts immune systems sometimes successfully recognize them as problems & eliminates them. The reason why some cancers often grow to a certain size before being eliminated by the immune system (& others don't) is a question that is currently a hot research topic.
Thus my original point: Moving the detection size down through TFA's method runs the risk of detecting cancers that the body will eliminate anyway, so just detecting small cancers is insufficient. We need a means of detecting the small cancers that the immune system will not recognize.
Not that great? Ont the subject of being bought by Hollywood, The Dems are demonstrably worse. Hollywood, & all the IAAs give much more to the Dems & you'll never see a similar paper from an equivalent Dem study committee as they clearly know who their owners are.