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.
No, Apple did not use the Dropbox SDK to block apps,
Apple blocked iOS Apps that use Dropbox SDK.
1. Do not talk about iOS club.
2. Do not compete with services offered by Apple.
3. Do NOT TALK ABOUT iOS CLUB!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
This is why I don't publish an app for my web services. Safari's rich enough for an appropriately formatted and scripted web interface, and it avoids the 30% haircut.
I think we need an offshoot of the The Fuckwad Theory.
Enough Market Share + Enough Fawning Press Attention on Devices + Gobs of Cash = Corporate Fuckwad.
Seems to be true of Google to some extent, too.
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.
This article is completely wrong.
The word SDK is used improperly, and what Apple is complaining about is not at all what the article states. It sickens me that articles like this reinstill false ideas of what and why Apple does things.
Simply put, Apple's policy is that for any app in the appstore, if you desire someone to purchase additional features for your app, and you tell them about it, they must be done through in-app purchases. DropBox is not doing this. It's completely okay according to Apple for the DropBox app to not say anything about buying additional storage, and then selling this additional storage on their website, but it is NOT okay according to Apple to tell the user inside the app about this additional storage, and then bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and giving the user a link to the website.
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.
Ok. Link me to the software I can use instead on Windows, OS X, and Linux and has shell integration on all 3 and a free usage tier.
I wouldn't care normally. What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.
Trivial example: what about photographers using it to upload their work. What if they were working today. They had nothing to do with this. What about people using the SDK to work on files on an office app?
I can understand how it might happen if it's an escalating situation, but causing 3rd parties problem is not the first action to take.
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.
Because they dont have a monopoly, thats why. Sometimes i think people forget how far MS went and how truly abusive they became. Apple is just guarding its slice of the pie, they know they will never reach MS's level of ubiquity (back in the day). MS tried to eat the whole pie, forever.
Good-bye
My problem is that Apple is causing problems with 3rd parties that have nothing to do with this dispute. I never commented on whether Dropbox was right or wrong. Apple could of sent an email message that said "This is a TOS violation, fix it." They cut off API users instead. That's the criticism.
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.
>>>If apple's business doesnt suit you, dont buy
Done and done (and modded minus one).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
this is not a government we're talking about, just dont buy apple, whats the problem?
They haven't cut anyone off. Any apps that were approved before are still on sale on the app store and work just as they did before.
Apple just aren't allowing new apps or app versions that use a new API that breaches app store rules.
Your criticism is misguided.
Because they are not a monopoly. There is choice in the smartphone & tablet market. If you don't like Apple's walled garden, get an Android. And even if Android had never happened, I still don't think that they would be considered a monopoly because it's an optional technology. You can use a laptop for most things that an iP* can do.
It does. Criticism is only constructive from people who understand the subject matter sufficiently well. If they simply bitch about stuff they dont know, well, its just that, bitching about stuff they dont know.
The guy (or gal) admitted to not using apple products but chooses to criticize apple's practices on behalf of people who do. How is that sensible? AND on top of that mods down people who disagree with him. Thats just childish.
Such is the Internet, I guess. Just wanted to point that out.
...They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge. ...
Actually, as far as I know, they can't do that, likely because it would have the same effect as telling them to go to their website and buy instead of letting Apple get a cut. No source on that, though, so I may be wrong.
A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.
Of course, Apple probably also wants to have a system wherein it's a more seamless experience for users to pay for something. Instead of downloading a "free" app and then going through the developer's website and entering your credit card info again to pay to actually use the app, you just pay for the app at download and have everything available at the start.
Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity, and that (by all accounts) the App Store merely pays for itself. There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.
(I may be wrong about all this. I just woke up and am still bleary-eyed, after all, which is a bad condition for posting.)
If you can't convince them, convict them.
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
My point was that the reason for the downmod doesn't matter, since it was negated by the posting.
Also, where did they criticize anything? They posted a reply to a post that basically said "if you don't like a company's business practices, don't give them money", sarcastically pointing out that this was obvious and already being done. He wasn't downmidding someone who disagreed with him; on the contrary, he was voicing agreement (by stating that he was already doing what the posted suggested) and the downmod was clearly due to the obviousness of the statement, something I blatantly pointed out in my reply.
Since you can't seem to wrap your head around the real problem here, let me elaborate:
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, but then their SDK would essentially be useless. If you don't have a DropBox account and try to use an app that makes use of the DropBox SDK, what do you do? Read the documentation and learn that you must go to the DropBox website to create an account? That seems contrary to Apple's own "just works" mentality, while TAKING you to the correct place to complete this action is precisely the "Apple way of doing things". Nice and easy. Further, since it an SDK integrated into an app ostensibly not created or sold by DropBox, how exactly does DropBox get paid for in-app purchases? If the user does have the DropBox app installed, that app is launched and an in-app purchase is offered; the browser is only used when this is not an option.
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(!).
They actually can't, in a 3rd party app using their SDK, offer in-app purchases of their service and actually get paid for them; that money would go to the developer of the app making use of their SDK. This isn't a problem for their own app, which does allow in-app purchases, because they get paid for those. It is not possible for them to get paid for in-app purchases through a 3rd-party app; which is why ther app is launched for those purchases, if present, and, if their app is not present, a browser is launched instead.
This doesn't appear to actually violate any of Apple's policies, in reality. It is not the app vendor who is selling anything, it is the app vendor's provider (DropBox) for whom the app vendor is not able to collect payment. In the case of DropBox's own app, where DropBox is the one actually making the sale, that is done as an in-app purchase. That seems, to me, to follow the rules.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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
I'm sick of having to download hundreds of needless apps whose functionality could have been performed in Safari.
It's getting ridiculous: "Honey, how many pages of apps do I have to scroll through until I get to the one that displays the tensile strength of Reebok shoelaces?"
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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!"
This is not about legality. No one's disputing that. Of COURSE Apple has the "right" to do what it wants on its platform. This is not about whether or not what Apple is doing is legal. It's about them being assholes. It's legal to be an asshole for sure, but they're still assholes.
What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.
Then you'll be pleased to learn that existing apps using previous Dropbox SDK versions still work perfectly and can still be downloaded from the app store (including Dropbox's own app). Nothing that was already approved has been removed or uninstalled.
Blank until
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.
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.
If I am a drop box user looking for a tablet/smartphone I would probably look for one that has a dropbox app, therefore as you imply it is just as legitimate to say that dropbox brought people to apple
Users can't download any app that uses the NEW Dropbox SDK, and ONLY if they don't ALREADY have the Dropbox app installed on their phone.
You see, what happens is that the app using the SDK will attempt to set you up with Dropbox if you don't already have it - this CAN be done through the Dropbox app. But if the Dropbox app won't launch, it'll fire you off to Dropbox in the browser, circumventing Apple's TOS restrictions, because you can purchase additional storage for Dropbox via that browser page, meaning apple doesn't get their cut.
Now, you may disagree with the 30% cut, but this is a NEW version of the SDK, and no existing apps are being delisted.
Although I partially disagree with GP (nobody was cut off...), I'd say the main problem is the same that ended up causing so much troubles to Microsoft: abuse of dominant position
I don't think we're there yet, but the limit is becoming very thin between "making profit because it's our goal as a company" and "give us your money, resistance is futile"
Will someone please mod parent up?
Partly because he rages with the eloquence of Hunter Stockton Thompson, and partly because he is correct.
Personally I'm very uncomfortable with the rules of Apple's sandbox...but it is their sandbox, so they do get to make the rules. Anyone who doesn't like the rules can leave the sandbox. Or hedge their bets by buying AAPL. Haha.
By this analogy the Mafia should be allowed to operate freely because everyone needs 'insurance' so that bad things don't happen. We all know that if you don't pay your insurance to Vinnie and Tony something bad will happen...
Let's be honest: Apple's Walled Garden is *not* an "Ecosystem" -- it is a kind of monopoly. It is a "pay to play" garden where you will be cast out of the garden if you eat fruit from the Tree of Revenue without paying Apple it's cut.
Apple's iOS App Store rules state that all in-app purchases must use the In-app purchase mechanism. In addition, you cannot link to an external purchase mechanism. Finally, Apple charges their standard 30% fee for purchases for in-app purchasing.
The issue in the Dropbox SDK is that it fires up a web view for authentication, and the page it went to was not properly sandboxed. By creating an account, then clicking a link to go to the desktop version, you got to a page that let you pay to upgrade to a pro version. At this point, it broke the rule above. Since this was functionality within the SDK, all the applications being submitted to the store using this version of the SDK are breaking this rule and getting rejected.
My guess is Dropbox released a new SDK version that sends the user to a different web page for authentication, this one being properly sandboxed. I do not know what Dropbox would be talking to Apple about; unless Dropbox API support is added to the OS, you would need the Dropbox client installed in order to be able to even support in-app purchasing of a pro account.
wuala.com. Your data is even encrypted before it leaves your device. You still can share your data cryptographically. If you share it to the world at large, then the service provider can potentially see the data as well, otherwise it is still encrypted. I use the Linux client and the Android client, other platforms are supported as well.
Why would they be?
According to /. Apple is "dying" in the smartphone marketplace under withering domination by Android. If that's the case, how can they be in violation of antitrust laws if they are not in a monopoly position? Surely consumers are free to choose another platform? Or is all of the Android talk simply false?
It's either one or the other. (Hint: Android's marketshare is not made up).
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.
Actually the rules are very clearly posted and are in no way confusing.
It's much like if I owned a popular jewelry store and told you that you could sell some of your products through my storefront if I took a 30% commission. Then, when a customer comes in to my store you whisper to him "psst, you can get this necklace 30% cheaper. Just meet me at my own private store and we can do business without the owner of this place getting his cut." Customer is happy. You're happy. I, the store owner, am not. I gave you a customer through my own distribution channel and you tried to sidestep giving me what you owe me for that.
Damn, people are so entitled these days.
Modifying your analogy
Your store lets people come in and play games against each other. Someone comes in and says "Hey, you know, this game can be better if you go to this website and read the strategy there." You kick him out of the store and ban him from ever mentioning the website, because it happens to sell cards on an unrelated section of the website, and selling cards is banned in your store.
That is what apple is doing here. An app has dropbox integration as a feature. The user clicks on that integration and is prompted for a dropbox user name and password. There is also a button if the user does not have a dropbox account. If that button is clicked the app checks to see if the dropbox app is installed, and if not, gives them the url to register for dropbox, which is opened in Safari. This registration is completely free. Apple bans the app because the user could possibly use that dropbox url to make account and then later pay for dropbox pro and apple won't get a cut on that.
This is a major difference between an app skirting the "selling premium content" rule by linking to a url, and an app linking to a registration for a free account that has optional paid extras. Cause i'm pretty sure Apple is now saying that no app is allowed to link to google registration, facebook registration, or anything... That seems pretty absurd to me
If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.
There is a clear distinction between allowing what you just described and demanding a 30% cut of services offered outside of the App itself.
Dropbox sells cloud storage space and gives away free clients. If you upgrade your dropbox accounts storage space there is no reason apple should take 30% of revenue. Period.
By that logic when I pay my utility bill with my banking app then apple should have claim to 30% of that too. Which is absurd.
Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity,
Dropbox isn't a charity either. Why should it donate 30% of revenue to apple when a dropbox customer upgrades their cloudstorage space on dropbox simply because they happened to be holding their iphone when they did it?
There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.
And there's also the fact that Apple actively prevents you from using any other distribution and payment processing. Lots of big enterprise applications have mobile apps to access their systems on the go (accounting, CRM, etc...) Everyone of them thinks loading the app onto devices through end user itunes accounts is completely idiotic.
Do you think for a second that SAP gets a lot of new business bubbling up from the iphone app store? Or is it 99.9999% customers who already have SAP and want to install the SAP mobile client.
I'm sure SAP would be happy to take on distributing the mobile client directly if they could.
And It's A-OK for DropBox to sign users up to premium subscriptions without giving Apple a cut. They just can't do it from within an iOS app.
And I'm sure they can't do what you're describing from within a PS Store or Xbox app either. If it's possible, for sure Sony or MS will be getting a cut.
and then later pay for dropbox pro and apple won't get a cut on that.
No. If it was a case of later, there wouldn't be problem. The reason what they're doing is not allowed is because the user can pay now, without Apple getting their cut.
Actually that WAS the problem. Dropbox released a new version of the API which doesn't break the rule 4 days ago.