Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK
Barence writes with an excerpt from PC Pro: "Dropbox's latest SDK has incurred the wrath of Apple, because users who don't have the Dropbox app installed on their iPhone/iPad are instead pushed to Dropbox's website via the Safari browser. Here, they can click a link to the desktop version of the service, which allows them to buy extra Dropbox storage without Apple taking its usual 30% cut."
Reportedly, Dropbox is attempting to strike a deal to resolve the problem.
What's to stop an iP* user going directly to the dropbox website anyway?
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Point missed.
Recap: Apple just used sledgehammer to solve problem that tweezers would of solved.
Conclusion: Apple just acted like a corporate bastard again and held up their user's legitimate business so they could get more cash.
What's wrong with that? The users don't have the app on their iPhone, so they are taken to the company's website. Is that so horrible? That's how every other browser in the world works. Are Apple phone/padd users now verboten from visiting company websites?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Analysis of your conclusion: You are a deluded idiot, continually suprised by for profit businesses seeking profit, which you equate with them being 'bastards'. Your delusion give a pass to Dropbox, presumably because they are 'the little guy', despite their acting in contravention of Apple's quite clear rules about in app purchases.
This -1 isn't really worthy of reply, but I will do it anyway...
You obviously are setting up a strawman. The problem here isn't seeking profit, it's holding users for ransom.
Now fucking sleep in it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I know that a shopper could always choose to go another platform (Android, RIM, Microsoft, etc.), but at what point will there be sufficient incentive to allow for this behavior to be investigated as anti-competitive? Apple controls the only marketplace on their very popular platform, and is using that control to dictate how other companies do business and reach out to customers who are on that platform. Microsoft tried to do something vaguely similar in the late 90s and got called out for it. At what point do our current antitrust legislation come into effect? Is it a matter of platform market-share? Perhaps somebody with a greater understanding than I could enlighten me.
Who is the guilty party here, that which broke the rules or that which upholds them?
I dont know about the strawman, perhaps, but you're clearly misdirecting the blame here.
Nor does dropbox have to solicit business from an app _around_ the well defined process per established rules. They COULD stop short of sending people to their site, couldnt they? They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge. Or absorb the difference. Or, in fact, offer a discount(!).
Bottom line, there is no "apple tax" there's just a company (apple) doing business the way they see fit. This is a free market, and they are NOT a monopoly. If apple's business doesnt suit you, dont buy, simple as that.
In a fair world, Apple's rules wouldn't matter. Anyone who wanted to could simply avoid using the App Store and use an alternative, which iOS users could happily use without problems.
That's how it works in the Android world. Don't like Google Play's rules? Well, there's the Amazon AppStore. And there's AppsDB. And, of course, you can just let users download the APK (nothing to do with HOSTS files, I'm referring to the file type of Android apps) directly. Why? Because Android acknowledges something that iOS doesn't: If someone BOUGHT the device. It's THEIRS. Nobody (outside of government and service providers you choose to work with) has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with what you bought after it's been sold.
That's how it should be. When Apple stops trying to control what you run on your own phone, Apple's choices about who it bans from the AppStore will cease to be controversial.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yes, that Apple involved 3rd parties in the dispute off the bat by cutting off access. It was a great disservice to people who rely on it and have nothing to do with the dispute.
Apple can do what they want to do. That's why I went to Android.
a cab driver gets stopped for running a red light (or speeding, whatever). cop arrests him. the passengers are inconvenienced. do you blame the cop?
is that a disservice to the passengers or is this a service to the community who wont suffer another death from an accident this cabbie might have caused?
i think you're seeing this way too narrowly. apple are building an ecosystem. its easy to criticize their decisions out of context, but at the end of the day what they do works for a whole lot of people.
of course, it doesnt work for all, you are on android, and god bless. but with all due respect you're the one missing the point here.
If the cab driver was stopped for speeding where the laws were not clearly posted, or were deliberately confusing, yes, I would blame the cop for setting a speed trap. You know, speed traps - designed solely to bring in more income.
If I were Dropbox, I would say screw Apple - they get the 30% of the app, sure, but 30% of the extra storage users want? No way. What does that have to do with Apple? Why do they deserve that? They aren't buying anything in app, so what is the problem? Drop the app and let user dissatisfaction directed at Apple change their policy. If every app maker that had to face ridiculous draconian Apple policies would stand up to Apple, they would change their stupid policies. But as long as everybody keeps bending over and taking it, why should Apple change anything? They have a sweet deal going.
"But this one goes to 11!"
It's extortion. I use the same Dropbox storage on my PC, iPad and Android phone. If I want to purchase more storage, why should Apple get a cut?
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
If I were Dropbox, I would say screw Apple - they get the 30% of the app, sure, but 30% of the extra storage users want? No way. What does that have to do with Apple? Why do they deserve that? They aren't buying anything in app, so what is the problem?
Actually, that's the whole point. When an iPhone user is using a Dropbox-enabled app, Apple is bringing that customer to Dropbox. Dropbox users can still go on their own accord to the Dropbox site and add storage without paying Apple anything. But if an app tries to solicit business that bypasses the App Store fees, Apple calls them on it. Either they remove the link or they pay 30%-- pretty simple. It's not some ethical or moral situation, just a business contract.
E pluribus unum
When an iPhone user is using a Dropbox-enabled app, Apple is bringing that customer to Dropbox.
Not necessarily. If I already had Dropbox installed on my computer, and now want to extend that to my phone, Apple has not brought Dropbox any business they didn't already have. Dropbox does have clients for Windows, Mac, and Linux as well as the mobile platforms. I would guess most people using the mobile app already had Dropbox installed on another platform.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Jesus fucking christ you people are fucking braindead.
Apple gets a fucking cut if you purchase from in-app. In fact, IF you offer in-app purchases, you have to use the app store, and Apple gets their cut.
There is not one fucking thing preventing Dropbox from pulling in-app upgrades, and doing it only on their website. Or, if they want the option in-app, their app cannot redirect to the website to purchase.
IN APP. IN FUCKING APP. IN THE FUCKING APPLICATION YOU FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGED FUCKING RETARDS.
Jesus, these are the fucking rules for the iTunes ecosystem, that EVERY FUCKING DEVELOPER that sells on iTunes agrees to. Whether or not we agree with them doesn't fucking matter...this is the fucking contract that was entered into between developers and Apple.
Bad rules should be resisted.
It's not a bad rule. Here, let's move the argument into the real world. (Sadly, not a car analogy.)
I used to work at a gaming shop. One of the popular items was CCG cards (Magic and Pokemon being the big two at the time). One big revenue generator for the store was selling singles. (When you can sell the rare for the price of the pack or better, *and* sell the commons and uncommons, the math was pretty compelling).
We also had gaming space. And the rule was, no selling cards in the store. Why, you ask? Because players would bring binders of cards, take up one of our tables (using our floorspace, our electricity), and then proceed to undercut us - which is pretty easy when you have no overhead.
We tried to be nice, but they simply started making the deals, then "stepping outside" to exchange money. And yes, when we banned them we got nothing but "why are you being so mean"?
Were we saying "you can't sell your cards?" No, of course not - they're your cards. We're saying "you can't use our overhead to sell your cards". And that's what Apple is saying - if you provide a button on your App (which is being used through their app store) to buy something, Apple gets a cut. If they go to you through some other method, Apple doesn't care - you just can't cheat around it.