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.
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.
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.
...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
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!"
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.
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"
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.
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.