Who will demand better paid screeners? It doesn't happen.
When I was a student I worked at an airport one year, baggage handling. The security people got paid just over half what I did. The differences? We were employed by the airport. They were employed by a security firm the airport hired. We were considered essential. They were considered to be nothing more than a legal necessity.
And Dropbox isn't signing up users from within the app. The link in the app simply goes to the create account/login page, from which you can reach the subscription page.
Which is what I've said several times.
Except that should say USED TO go to... A day after the problem was raised, Dropbox released a revised SDK, which links to a page which allows sign-up, but doesn't have any links through to paid upgrades. The problem is sorted, and Apple didn't need to make an exception.
When a user creates an account through the mobile link given, they are not upsold. There are no links to purchase a pro account.
That's not true. The SDK as of 5 days ago when this happened linked to a page which had a link to the "Desktop Version". The desktop version is their full site, including paid upgrades.
4 Days ago they released a revised SDK that sends to a page without that link. And this version is now acceptable under Apple rules. And it still allows you to create a free account.
We are not talking about a court of law here. Apple can do as they wish, a precedent would not bind them.
Inconsistency would be yet another stick to beat Apple with. Consistency is good.
In the meantime, though, other app developers who are using Dropbox in their products - which is quite a few, since Dropbox is doubtlessly the most popular general-purpose cloud file storage service - cannot update their apps.
There is no "in the meantime". How many more times? The problem emerged 5 days ago. It took Dropbox 1 day to release a new version of the SDK that didn't break the rules. i.e. The problem was fixed 4 days ago. There are no developers who can't update their apps.
Your "common sense" is just your opinion. You're expecting a double standard; for Apple to bend the rules for a company that already updated their SDK to be within the rules 4 days ago. That's many things, but it is far from common sense.
There's this other more important thing called "precedent".
If the purchase part isn't there to be used at that time, then DropBox can simply direct Safari to a version of the website that doesn't offer the upgrade.
And indeed a rather larger version of that solution - removing the "Desktop Version" link is the one they already implemented 4 days ago, 1 day after the problem was reported. True common sense says that if DropBox can fix it in a day, there's no need for Apple to go rule-bending just for them. That's true common sense.
Much of what you say is correct and reasonable. But there's a couple of points where you go wrong.
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?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Safari linked page offering to set up a new free Drop-Box account. The issue is only that it also offers an upgrade to a paid account.
It's an easy fix. Dropbox just need to send users to a separate area of their website, unlinked to the generic website. And to not offer paid upgrades in that separate area.
In fact that's more or less what they already did 4 days ago. They offered a revised version of the API, without the "Desktop Version" link. You can still log in or sign up.
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.
The fact that part of the app's feature set is outsourced to another company doesn't appear to make any difference to the rules. If it did, then of course it would be very easy to circumvent deliberately by a businessman setting up two companies, one for the app, another for some payable service used by the app.
The number of clicks is irrelevant. If Apple said it's OK if the purchase is 3 clicks away, then people wanting to cheat Apple out of their in-app purchase cut will simply design their in app purchase web site so the actual purchase is 3 clicks away. If it's 4 clicks away then...
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.
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.
So Apple DOES want a cut or storage sold through the Dropbox website if the browser is launched from within the application.
Or to remove the link to "buy though Safari" from the app. It's a simple choice.
Apple gets a 30% cut of in app purchases. Why? Because apps with in app purchases are usually priced at FREE, so it's the only way Apple make their profit. The app sending the user to a web-site to make the purchase is obviously trying to work around the system. To use Apple's Store to make a profit, but not give Apple their cut. And it's understandably not allowed. It's in the rules, and DropBox should have known it. And it'll take all of a day or two to change and resubmit an app that does follow the rules.
"John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
Which doesn't address the point I made at all. Unquantified majorities on both sides displaying pragmatism doesn't say how many of each side believe in evolution.
The very same Pew Forum, in 2006 shows my assertion correct: "Nor is the rejection of evolution a result of political or ideological beliefs. While Republicans and conservatives are more apt than Democrats or liberals to deny that evolution occurs, this correlation is mostly a result of the large number of evangelicals with creationist views in the Republican Party and among conservatives." http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Many-Americans-Uneasy-with-Mix-of-Religion-and-Politics.aspx#3
And your rejection of the very many studies showing liberals more intelligent than conservatives on the basis that people don't know what politics they have is laughable. The complaint about "kids" refers to a particular study of childhood intelligence together with how they later voted at age 34. At age 34 they know their politics very well.
I'm afraid neither of your denials are based in fact. They are imaginary arguments that you created from the gist you got from a couple of Googled articles. You cooked them up to support your beliefs, unconcerned that there was no hard fact in them. Typical right wing behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Who will demand better paid screeners? It doesn't happen.
When I was a student I worked at an airport one year, baggage handling. The security people got paid just over half what I did. The differences? We were employed by the airport. They were employed by a security firm the airport hired. We were considered essential. They were considered to be nothing more than a legal necessity.
I'm with the GP. Privatising public services inevitably makes things more expensive and user hostile.
And you'd be wrong. Unsurprisingly.
Nonsense.
And Dropbox isn't signing up users from within the app. The link in the app simply goes to the create account/login page, from which you can reach the subscription page.
Which is what I've said several times.
Except that should say USED TO go to... A day after the problem was raised, Dropbox released a revised SDK, which links to a page which allows sign-up, but doesn't have any links through to paid upgrades. The problem is sorted, and Apple didn't need to make an exception.
Wrong. Existing apps will still use the old SDK API, which both still works and doesn't contravene Apple's rules. Nothing has stopped working.
When a user creates an account through the mobile link given, they are not upsold. There are no links to purchase a pro account.
That's not true. The SDK as of 5 days ago when this happened linked to a page which had a link to the "Desktop Version". The desktop version is their full site, including paid upgrades.
4 Days ago they released a revised SDK that sends to a page without that link. And this version is now acceptable under Apple rules. And it still allows you to create a free account.
Given that they are an American company, presumably they use the US price as the standard, and judge large currency fluctuations from that.
We are not talking about a court of law here. Apple can do as they wish, a precedent would not bind them.
Inconsistency would be yet another stick to beat Apple with. Consistency is good.
In the meantime, though, other app developers who are using Dropbox in their products - which is quite a few, since Dropbox is doubtlessly the most popular general-purpose cloud file storage service - cannot update their apps.
There is no "in the meantime". How many more times? The problem emerged 5 days ago. It took Dropbox 1 day to release a new version of the SDK that didn't break the rules. i.e. The problem was fixed 4 days ago. There are no developers who can't update their apps.
Your "common sense" is just your opinion. You're expecting a double standard; for Apple to bend the rules for a company that already updated their SDK to be within the rules 4 days ago. That's many things, but it is far from common sense.
Maybe not. Part of Oracle's complaint is that some of the source code is copied. The argument is whether it's trivial/coincidental or not.
There's this other more important thing called "precedent".
If the purchase part isn't there to be used at that time, then DropBox can simply direct Safari to a version of the website that doesn't offer the upgrade.
And indeed a rather larger version of that solution - removing the "Desktop Version" link is the one they already implemented 4 days ago, 1 day after the problem was reported. True common sense says that if DropBox can fix it in a day, there's no need for Apple to go rule-bending just for them. That's true common sense.
Much of what you say is correct and reasonable. But there's a couple of points where you go wrong.
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?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Safari linked page offering to set up a new free Drop-Box account. The issue is only that it also offers an upgrade to a paid account.
It's an easy fix. Dropbox just need to send users to a separate area of their website, unlinked to the generic website. And to not offer paid upgrades in that separate area.
In fact that's more or less what they already did 4 days ago. They offered a revised version of the API, without the "Desktop Version" link. You can still log in or sign up.
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.
The fact that part of the app's feature set is outsourced to another company doesn't appear to make any difference to the rules. If it did, then of course it would be very easy to circumvent deliberately by a businessman setting up two companies, one for the app, another for some payable service used by the app.
The number of clicks is irrelevant. If Apple said it's OK if the purchase is 3 clicks away, then people wanting to cheat Apple out of their in-app purchase cut will simply design their in app purchase web site so the actual purchase is 3 clicks away. If it's 4 clicks away then...
Wrong. No app has been removed from the store. This is about new apps or new versions of apps that use a new API.
Anything a user already downloaded still works just as it always did.
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.
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.
You'll find that in any business contract if you try to stiff the other party and cheat them out of their cut, they'll take action to stop you.
In that case they don't need a link from the iOS app to create (and possibly pay for) an account. They can take it out.
(In fact they already have, 4 days ago. The issue described in this story lasted a day and is already over.)
So Apple DOES want a cut or storage sold through the Dropbox website if the browser is launched from within the application.
Or to remove the link to "buy though Safari" from the app. It's a simple choice.
Apple gets a 30% cut of in app purchases. Why? Because apps with in app purchases are usually priced at FREE, so it's the only way Apple make their profit. The app sending the user to a web-site to make the purchase is obviously trying to work around the system. To use Apple's Store to make a profit, but not give Apple their cut. And it's understandably not allowed. It's in the rules, and DropBox should have known it. And it'll take all of a day or two to change and resubmit an app that does follow the rules.
Seems like yet another person who thinks accusing someone of being a "fan-boy" is a real argument.
It seems that because you're on Android you don't understand what happened here. No one's access has been cut off.
Describe exactly how users are being held for ransom...
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.
Yes really.
"John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
Which doesn't address the point I made at all. Unquantified majorities on both sides displaying pragmatism doesn't say how many of each side believe in evolution.
The very same Pew Forum, in 2006 shows my assertion correct:
"Nor is the rejection of evolution a result of political or ideological beliefs. While Republicans and conservatives are more apt than Democrats or liberals to deny that evolution occurs, this correlation is mostly a result of the large number of evangelicals with creationist views in the Republican Party and among conservatives."
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Many-Americans-Uneasy-with-Mix-of-Religion-and-Politics.aspx#3
And your rejection of the very many studies showing liberals more intelligent than conservatives on the basis that people don't know what politics they have is laughable. The complaint about "kids" refers to a particular study of childhood intelligence together with how they later voted at age 34. At age 34 they know their politics very well.
I'm afraid neither of your denials are based in fact. They are imaginary arguments that you created from the gist you got from a couple of Googled articles. You cooked them up to support your beliefs, unconcerned that there was no hard fact in them. Typical right wing behaviour.
That was a stupid tit-for-tat. How does "it all fit" given that I don't drive a Prius? Dumbo.
Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing.
In a way that's true. Just as evolution "supporters" are more left wing.
1) Reality has a well know liberal bias.
2) On average liberals are more intelligent than right-wingers.
Truck. The vehicle of a redneck. It all fits.