17 ms·

Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

723 points by dannyr 15y ago

azov 15y ago
What Apple is doing seems to be completely legal and completely disgusting (and not at all new). Given that there's no ground for legal action, here are a few things we, developers, can do: 1. Don't work for Apple. This one is really the easiest to implement, there's more then enough fine alternatives in the Valley. 2. Don't develop for Apple. Unfortunately, not really an option for most mobile developers. So, the next best thing is "don't develop just for Apple". Make sure that if your customers want to switch, your app is available on other platforms. 3. Don't buy from Apple. Again, not really an option for developers because of #2 (and that's also another example of walled garden - you have to have a Mac to develop for iOS). One place where government regulation might be needed is to help create secondary market for apps. If I have many dollars worth of apps (or, say, books) and no way to sell them, this is obviously a big barrier to switch. I'd like to see a law requiring companies that sell digital goods to provide a way to transfer those goods to other users.
- laxatives 15y ago
  In my mind, Apple has always had the objective of trying to maximize purchases and forcing users who start to upgrade as often as possible. Everything else is secondary.
- creamyhorror 15y ago
  I like certain actions of my country's government (Singapore) in promoting competition: - forcing cable/telco companies to share the cost of broadcast rights to a major soccer tournament, despite the tournament corporation's remonstrations (previously the companies bidded for the exclusive rights against each other and passed the costs to consumers) - requiring telcos to provide number porting services so people can switch telcos without losing their numbers, thereby freeing them from lock-in These two actions cut the profits of the cable-telcos here but benefited consumers significantly. We would have been paying out the nose for soccer broadcasts otherwise, and been stuck with our old mobile providers even when competitors were offering better prices. In a marketplace as huge as the smartphone+app+media ecosystem, I'm quite sure governments should be stepping in with regulatory tweaks to make sure users can use multiple services on each platform - even buy from competitors. Antitrust law shouldn't just be against monopolies - it should be actively pro-competition.
- kitsune_ 15y ago
  As a consumer, I stopped buying Apple products some time ago. The last thing I bought from Apple was an iPhone 3GS. I still have to use Apple products at work. Now, I don't think that other companies are inherently more moral than Apple. That would be a foolish assumption. It's just that one company dominating an entire market is bad for almost everyone. If you develop mobile apps, only having one channel of distribution / platform is such a high risk. I don't understand developers that only target one platform.
- chj 15y ago
  yes, i will consider moral values over convenience in my future purchases and also i am going to favor platforms that are more open in future. freedom trumps everything, more profits doesn't necessary make you happier.
ihodes 15y ago
Flagged for the linkbait title (which is in fact the title of the forum post), but I'd love it if the title we just edited to actually reflect what was going on. Edit: To answer some comments; it's misleading because Apple is rejecting some applications which use Dropbox. Or, rather, a single one that we know of. For a reason other than "Dropbox is used by the application", to boot. A better title would explain what was actually happening (no offense to OP; I'm glad s/he cut out the editorializing). But I'm sitting here at -4, so it's unlikely this is seen :)
- glhaynes 15y ago
  It's linkbaity for sure but it seems entirely accurate, too.
- tylermenezes 15y ago
  I don't understand why this is linkbait? Apple is indeed rejecting apps which use Dropbox.
  - taligent 15y ago
    No. They are blocking applications which allow you to make purchases without using Apples in app purchasing system. See the difference ?
    - antonID 15y ago
      ...and using the Dropbox SDK is apparently violating that
      - taligent 15y ago
        THIS version does. And a NEW version doesn't. There is no specific probelem with Dropbox.
        sbov 15y ago
        But... there... was? Not too long ago? And it might require action by users of the Dropbox SDK? I get notifications of security updates for apache. Guess I shouldn't though, because by the time I get any it's no longer a problem with apache. Maybe I should tell my security auditor that?
AJ007 15y ago
I can not be the only one thinking there is an antitrust issue here? I would guess the book thing means Apple is under quite a bit of scrutiny. While I'm not involved in mobile, I've had similar experiences for over half a decade dealing with the banal, highly questionable, and non-uniformly enforced rules Google imposes on its own advertisers. Some of the stuff is bad enough it makes you think it would fall under RICO if this wasn't a large company but rather an Italian owned waste disposal company.
- chc 15y ago
  AFAIK, it would only be an antitrust issue if it were shown to be anticompetitive. If Apple is a monopoly or acting as part of an illegal trust, yeah, they're going to get smacked down. But I think the general consensus is that Android is a credible competitor to iOS and Windows is a more-than-credible competitor to Mac OS X, so Apple is not a monopoly.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- juxta 15y ago
  i'm not too sure on the exact details of antitrust but this seems more ethical then antitrust. They are not disallowing the users from NOT being able to purchase more dropbox storage - as long as it goes their stream to purchase it (which results in them getting 30%). Wouldn't antitrust be that they are not allowing it all together on their platform? Wouldn't the same idea of you going to a movie theater and not allowing you to bring in your own food/candy - you must purchase it through them since they make more money from a transaction you would have done elsewhere?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - collision 15y ago
    Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.
thought_alarm 15y ago
It's back to the old v0.3 Dropbox SDK for me. What a pain in the ass.
kennywinker 15y ago
This has gone way too far. The other day I downloaded the Google Play Books app. I started it up, signed in.. and nothing. No prompt to go buy books online, no hint at what the app does... just a blank screen. It's completely scummy. You can buy Apple's iCloud storage upgrade from within the OS, and now you can't even LINK to a place where you could link to a place where if you click the right link you could buy Dropbox storage.
- davepeck 15y ago
  It's awful, and it's painful for everyone -- not just those using the DropBox APIs. The origins of these clauses are with iBooks and the Kindle app for iOS. I wrote about it in a recent blog post: http://davepeck.org/2011/11/04/kindle-clauses/ http://davepeck.org/2011/11/04/kindle-clauses/
  - nupark2 15y ago
    In terms of UX and as a consumer, I'd rather the Dropbox API not open a browser or even another app. That is not the best UX, it doesn't provide a security advantage, and it's simply not being done to benefit the consumer. This may not be Apple's primary rational for rejecting these apps, but I'm glad they're doing it. As for the payment question, simply in terms of UX and as a consumer, I want only one payment provider and account on the device. I hate pulling my credit card out and remembering my password for the nth account. Consumers are happy with the platform. Look at the sales numbers and earnings reports. Obviously companies like Dropbox see the value in the platform too -- I just wish they'd take the time to understand why it has that value, and why Apple has huge profits and very happy users.
    - cageface 15y ago
      I'd rather Apple give developers the choice and let user preference sort it out. In the long run the open market always wins.
      - nupark2 15y ago
tnash 15y ago
This is really going over the line. People are content in the walled garden, but if it starts getting too stuffy in there people will want to leave. Unfortunately it makes "business sense" (read: nonsense) for Apple to raise the walls of their walled garden as high as they can make them. Hopefully at some point there will be enough discontent to remove things like this.
- taligent 15y ago
  You mean the same line that has been in place for nearly 2 years ? Pretty sure most people don't care.
  - tnash 15y ago
    Sure. Not right now, they don't. My point is that if Apple keeps pushing the walls higher on its garden at some point people will start complaining. iOS could very well become the Windows of mobile. I can imagine a future where a lot of people will complain "I don't want to use iOS, but it has all the apps!". I personally have owned an iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, and iPad and I will probably buy the upcoming iPhone. Apple's walled garden restrictions get on my nerves, but they've been a subtle annoyance. I can live with them, but at some point they'll stop being a nuisance and become a problem.
    - taligent 15y ago
      You seem to be confused. This Dropbox is the same rule that has been in places for years. In fact the walled garden is less evident than in the past.
      - CraigRood 15y ago
        No I don't think hes confused, I feel the same way. What made the Kindle issue "OK" is that Kindle was undermining the Apple marketplace. This is simply not the case here. Apple are just being 'assholes'. A link to a link, to a link that sells disk space - not even CONTENT. How does it undermine Apples business model, or hurt end users? Answer is, It doesn't.
chj 15y ago
this is an antitrust issue even if it isn't by law. sometimes i think developers should unite and pull all apps from appstore to protest.
k-mcgrady 15y ago
After reading through the thread it seems they are rejecting apps because a piece of the Dropbox SDK breaks the App Store guidelines. They are not simply rejecting Dropbox integrated apps. It's well known that you cannot link the user to make a purchase outside of the iOS ecosystem. It was a huge issue with the eBook apps last years. I'm not saying I agree with Apple's stance on that but they are not rejecting apps which use Dropbox because they don't like Dropbox. Dropbox is breaking the rules and as soon as they fix that (it seems they already have) there will be no more problems.
- jsnell 15y ago
  That wasn't really linking the user to make a purchase, it was somebody following a silly path of links from the initial target to arrive at a place where they could buy something. Maybe it was an honest (if overzealous) call by an app reviewer. Or maybe it was one of Apple's regular and brutal attempts at keeping direct competitors from benefiting from their platform. We don't know yet which, though I guess we'll know soon enough.
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    It wasn't linking them directly but they eventually followed a path where the could make a purchase. I guess it's kind of a grey area but Apple's reviewers tend to side against you when it comes to grey areas. I don't totally agree with their stance on this but I can see why it was rejected.
- thought_alarm 15y ago
  They are rejecting apps that use the v1.0 or greater of the Dropbox SDK, or apps that use the Dropbox OAUTH API. Or, perhaps they're rejects apps that allow you to create a Dropbox account. That would cover all versions of the Dropbox SDK. The specific reasons they gave are: - "This app contains a link that takes the user to Dropbox via Safari". - "The concern with this app is that the user is taken to Dropbox's website, if they do not have Dropbox installed on their device, where they have the option to purchase additional storage space." How would you read that? They seem to suggest that you can't link to any page on dropbox.com. The problem is that neither Dropbox's login page nor their create-account page provide any links for purchasing anything, nor do they provide links to Dropbox's main site. http://rfc64k.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dj-xhtrivxl.png http://rfc64k.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dj-xhtrivxl.png So it seems that merely because the login page is hosted at Dropbox.com, it is forbidden because Dropbox.com can be used for purchasing things. That would rule out all forms of OAUTH. Their proposed solution was to remove the "Create Account" link, but it's not at all clear whether that was the original problem, or whether it solves anything. The bottom line is that if your app currently uses any version of the Dropbox SDK or the Dropbox OAUTH API your app may be rejected and you're now in a state of limbo.
bitops 15y ago
Since I see a lot of people using the term "antitrust" incorrectly in this article, here is a Wikipedia link on United States antitrust law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
ianloic 15y ago
Apple has been doing this with other APIs for a while. If your app links to a way of signing up for an account that could be used to pay for something you'll be rejected. If you mention the existence of such an account you'll probably be rejected. Personally I don't like being treated like this - as a user or a developer. So I take my time and money elsewhere.
trieu 15y ago
This is linkbait because it suggests that Apple is rejecting any app that uses Dropbox. That's patently untrue. For example: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts/id502385074 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts/id502385074 It looks like Apple is rejecting apps that use the Dropbox SDK in a way that violates the TOS. But then the headline may as well read, "Apple rejecting applications which use code."
- rogerchucker 15y ago
  So bloody what if it is linkbait? The issue at hand deserves attention and debate.
- chc 15y ago
  Based on what Apple seem to be indicating to the people in the OP thread, it's the behavior of the Dropbox SDK itself that they're objecting to. If Drafts made it through by anything except dumb luck, Agile Tortoise must either a) have gone out of its way to circumvent how the SDK normally works, or b) be using a deprecated SDK version from before Apple started objecting. (I don't have Drafts or I'd check to myself, but feel free to check the SDK version if you do.)
- nknight 15y ago
  You should look up what "linkbait" actually means. A forum discussion between developers about a problem using the Dropbox SDK in the iOS app store assuredly does not qualify.
  - neotek 15y ago
    I think he's referring to the article title, which makes an implication that seems designed to cause anger over a policy that isn't quite as corrupt as the title might suggest.
stbullard 15y ago
Looking at the link, it seems that only those apps using the latest version of Dropbox's SDK (1.2) are being rejected, for violating Apple's long-standing platform policies. Dropbox has since released a version of their SDK without the offending links. Is that a fair assessment?
- 5teev 15y ago
  Yeah, I hear a lot of complaining about Apple here, but not much about how Dropbox's SDK update broke apps that would otherwise be approved, and now Dropbox has a new version that fixes the problem.
starnix17 15y ago
I had a simliar rejection because of my app's Rdio integration. If the user had Rdio installed, my app would open the song in the Rdio native app. If the user didn't have the app installed, my app would open the song on the Rdio web site in MobileSafari. Apple didn't like this since you could purchase an Rdio subscription on that webpage bypassing the IAP and Apple's 30% cut.
- rogerchucker 15y ago
  I am waiting for that research paper titled "What came first for Apple - the money or the user experience?". I can imagine Apple's thinking here - if we can squeeze every 3rd party service to adopt our 30% cut, then (1) we'll add more to our bottomline and (2) people will have a better UX (or more precisely can go back to their old smoother and better UX). Question is - did I get the order right?
  - saurik 15y ago
    The 30% "apple tax" on their App Store is not a major way that Apple makes money (more on this in paragraph 2). This leads to the conclusion that Apple is not attempting to hobble stores that undercut them: they simply like using their control of the store ecosystem to maintain the quality, simplicity, and consistency of the experience that allows them to provide to their customers, with the nice side effect of giving them massive leverage over their largest competitors and power over many external markets. I'd thereby reverse the order you have. Checking the numbers, the profit margin on an iPhone is a little over $170, while the profit margin on an app is <<$1; most of the people I know who own an iPhone have purchased at least two of them (an upgrade a couple years later) and have purchased maybe, at most, 10 apps. If you check the Apple quarterly earnings reports Apple doesn't even bother separating App Store sales from iPod accessories: both are a tiny line item in comparison to the profit they make on their actual profit center (core hardware). However, for content resources, such as books or music, the story is much different: I know people who have purchased many thousands of dollars of music, movies, and television shows from iTunes over the years. This is enough that the iPod and AppleTV can be effectively subsidized by iTunes (something you don't see Apple doing with the iPhone: they make certain to get their profit on that at the point of sale, possibly plus a carrier subsidy). This is why this issue starts coming to the forefront for services like Rdio and Kindle: those actually hit Apple where it hurts, so Apple would prefer to use their control to hobble their opponents. But, Apple doesn't really want 30% of the revenue from these sales... it would be much better for Apple if they just went away, and people used iTunes instead. (I make this clear, as that is why I then don't feel it accurate to use this as an argument for the 30% being a primary concern.)
snarkinatree 15y ago
What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no matter how much money they make.:wq
- taligent 15y ago
  It also says a lot about you that you posted this whilst having a fundamental lack of knowledge about the situation. Did you even read what you linked to ?
  - snarkinatree 15y ago
    What did I link to? I'm well aware of the Apple "rules" as well as the rationale behind them. If you have superiror knowledge about Apple that puts them in a better light, then please share details.
    - taligent 15y ago
      Your title claims that Apple is rejecting apps which use Dropbox. Which is completely and utterly wrong.
      - snarkinatree 15y ago
        My "title"?
  - oblique63 15y ago
    I understand that you've been trying to make the point that this is a non-story (and I would agree with you, to an extent), but that was just rude and uncalled for. Is it wrong for the GP to try and start a conversation about the morality of a company as large as apple, demanding such a large degree of separation between users and the ability to make purchases outside apple's control? I'm about as 'anti-apple' as they come, and even I can see it was just a case of Dropbox's sdk doing something against apple's rules, but that doesn't mean what that what apple's doing is 'right', or even necessary for a corporation as large as them, which is what I believe the GP was hinting at. In my opinion it's just business as usual. Just look at wall street, and all the large oil corporations and such; a company as large as apple doing something dubious is not exactly shocking. If anything, that's what got these large corporations to where they are in the first place. Is it sad? sure, but it's nothing that we haven't seen before...
andrewparker 15y ago
Do any of the readers on this thread work at Apple? I'd love to have you chime in. The silence is deafening...
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  I'm fairly sure that a comment on this thread by an Apple employee would result in a pretty quick firing. It's a pretty tight ship over there.
  - tar 15y ago
    This shows just how differently Apple works. I've seen people from Google and Facebook commenting here whenever issues come up.
    - bruceboughton 15y ago
      You sound surprised.
- taligent 15y ago
  Ive worked for Apple and it is no different to any other company. A policy was put in place that governs the rules around when apps should be rejected or not. The rules haven't really changed for a while now. The current version of Dropbox SDK violated the in app purchasing rules which app developers unwittingly used. Hence their apps were rejected. People forget that the employees who are auditing these apps are the equivalent of customer service reps. They aren't developers and their job is to be objective and simply follow the rules.
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    Precisely, what's the offending rule?
    - evan_ 15y ago
      11.13, as the second post in the linked forum thread states. For an explanation: http://www.macstories.net/stories/11-13-and-the-dropbox-sdk/ http://www.macstories.net/stories/11-13-and-the-dropbox-sdk/
AncientPC 15y ago
I don't understand why people think this is new. I created a website that announced the launch of a small mobile app for both iOS and Android platforms. I was told by Apple that my app would not be approved as long as I had links to competitors (i.e. Android) on the web site.
- premise 15y ago
  How’s that possible? There’re a lot of (thousands?) multi-platform apps for iOS, Android, Blackberry etc. For instance, Angry Birds has versions for “iPhone/iPad/OS X,” “Nokia Devices,” and “Android (Amazon/Google Play)” on their website: http://shop.angrybirds.com/us/games/mobile-games.html http://shop.angrybirds.com/us/games/mobile-games.html Needless to say, the full list of platforms Angry Birds runs on is (according to Wikipedia) much bigger.
  - AncientPC 15y ago
    I don't know, we were a really small shop? It was the first app launch, and we prominently showed an iPhone and a Nexus side by side with our app. Whoever reviewed our app didn't like that, so we took the Nexus image down. We probably could have just posted the old design back up after the app got approved, but the company didn't last very long past that.
jpdoctor 15y ago
The message is clear: If you put apple in your critical path, prepare for crap like this.
valgaze 15y ago
To get a sense of Apple's power: Via Amazon, download any sample chapter to Kindle on iPad/iPhone. Scroll to the end and click "Buy Now" this is what you'll see: http://i.imgur.com/Flqfp.png http://i.imgur.com/Flqfp.png This power is good when it comes to muscling user-friendly dataplans from carriers, but with other stuff they are really playing hardball
- Tloewald 15y ago
  This is Amazon's way of handling the issue. Another option would be to cut a deal with Apple. Anyone having a free sample on their Kindle app presumably got it from Amazon's website and knows how to buy the full version. Compare this with trying to read a Nook, iBookstore, or DRM free ePub on a Kindle Fire. I'm sure it can be done, but it's well hidden.
- nooneelse 15y ago
  Apple cares so much about user experience that they encourage/pressure other services to break theirs.
charlieok 15y ago
The "remote storage" category seems to be the new platform battle. Apps and their per-user storage are becoming more decoupled (which is a good thing) and people are going to be picking a place to consolidate their personal storage. Companies offering this type of service are adding features to differentiate and (probably) increase lockin. Wherever users put their data, and whatever remote storage developers support with their apps, will become entrenched. Some big players so far (?): Dropbox Box SugarSync Google Drive Microsoft SkyDrive Apple iCloud? A stardization effort: http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage
petercooper 15y ago
While here, let's remember who'll control the dev certificate validity for Gatekeeper on OS X 10.8. Will we end up with cases where people break arbitrary yet-to-be-defined terms and boom, their standalone app no longer works on a default OS X install?
- mcantelon 15y ago
  Yeah, the Lion default, if I remember correctly, is signed apps only. Apple is really pushing to become an entity devs and publishers must pay tax to.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    That is the Mountain Lion default, not Lion.
- hej 15y ago
  Unlikely. We already have one example where Apple is enforcing the “no malware” rule and that’s the App Store. On the App Store, Apple reserves itself the right to not only remove apps from the store (which Apple has done often and we know a lot about) but also to actually remotely pull apps from users’ devices. Apple claims they will only actually remotely pull apps if said apps are malware. That’s the exact same rule they seem to want to apply in the future to third party apps on the Mac outside the App Store. I do not think Apple ever pulled an app from iOS devices. They certainly never used that right for apps that were rejected or removed from the App Store (e.g. tethering apps). They seem to really only want to pull true malware and don’t seem to apply some contorted definition of malware here. (E.g. I’m sure carriers would claim that tethering apps cause them much damage, hence they are malware, Apple doesn’t follow that definition of malware, though.)
  - toomanysecrets 15y ago
    > but also to actually remotely pull apps from users’ devices [Citation Needed]
    - 15y ago
sev 15y ago
Dropbox...design a slicker phone and a better phone OS than Apple, now is your chance!
beedogs 15y ago
Apple's really become a shitty company in the past few years. I was rooting for them when OS X was introduced, but now they're no better than Microsoft in the late 90s, and somehow more arrogant than MS ever was. How does something like this not run afoul of antitrust laws?
- Tloewald 15y ago
  If Apple were like Microsoft in the 90s then they would have implemented their own Flash player for the iPad and made its frequent crashes look like Adobe's fault, they'd make it impossible to uninstall or remove Safari from the desktop or dock, and switch Chrome and Firefox for Safari as your default browser every time you upgraded Safari (which would be every time you patched). Every time a mew version of OSX shipped, competing third party apps would become unstable. Software compiled with non Apple tools would generate bogus error messages on pre-release copies of OSX. Apple would develop its own version of Java that ran faster but encouraged developers to use features not available in Java. They'd also bundle apps together so that anyone buying Apple's popular video editor, say, would have a free image editing and page layout programs. They'd steal code from third party developers and turn them into free add ons for their OSes. Oh and they'd simply kill off competitors by releasing free clones of their products. They'd license their OS to hardware vendors on the condition that those vendors pay a license fee for every box shipped even if it didn't have the OS installed. When successfully sued for misconduct, they'd pay some of the fines in the form of strategic donations of software to their competitors' best customers. Each of these items can be mapped directly to something Microsoft has been demonstrated to have done in the 90s.
  - Duff 15y ago
    I recall using Netscape in 1998 or so on Windows Nt. Where do I find the download link for Chrome or Safari on iOS?
    - Tloewald 15y ago
      Did google try to release chrome for ios and get blocked by Apple and I didn't hear about it? There are a ton of third party web browsers for ios.
salem 15y ago
If Microsoft pulled a move like this there would be hell to pay
siculars 15y ago
Someone explain to me how what Apple is doing is not the same sort of monopoly the government squashed with Microsoft. Basically MS used their os monopoly to push IE. Apple uses its monopoly to get a cut of all action on its phone.
- latch 15y ago
  It isn't even funny just how different it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_...
peterkelly 15y ago
Wow, this really freaked me out when I saw this. I've just spent several months working on an app, which I hope to release soon, of which Dropbox support is a major feature. If they didn't allow my app on the app store because of this I'd have to seriously cripple the functionality of my app to get it accepted. Sure, there's iCloud, but it's only about 50% there - all the support is there on iOS but there's no generic way to get at your iCloud documents from a PC or Mac in the same way you can with Dropbox and similar services. I'd be happy to support iCloud if it did this but it's simply not there yet. Dropbox is a hugely important thing for iOS apps, since the iPad provides no generic user-accessible file system. Dropbox is by far the most convenient way I've seen for syncing data between the iPad and your computer, and I think Apple would be foolish to prevent people from doing this because it would make using an iPad for content creation-type work very inconvenient. Fortunately from reading about this it sounds like the issue can be resolved by changing the way the account authorisation step works. Dropbox have already released an updated SDK and I've just downloaded this to try it out.
- josteink 15y ago
  So you saw how Apple burned all the bridges between you and your customers, and left just a thin rope for you to hang on to. You just saw this and still you think basing your business on anything controlled by Apple is a good idea? Seriously?
vegas 15y ago
Microsoft eventually overcame Apple's superior market position and better product because the market is going to act to increase choice on the part of intelligent consumers of information technology(i.e. competitive organizations). Apple was able to superscede Microsoft's platform advantage because everything became a web application(thanks Netscape!) At the moment a bunch of guys with drool on their spreadsheets are trying to turn the world of web applications back into a platform one so that they can collect rent. It seems like this particular escape from freedom isn't going to occur because: 1) A major appeal of mobile devices is the idea that you can give people who are disinclined to serious computer literacy a tool that is easier to secure, and requires less support staff to show them how to use. * However, it seems unlikely that large profit seeking organizations will thrive by handing their nervous systems over to other large profit seeking organizations. Ultimately companies are going to want their locked down devices for their less computer literate employees to be completely within their control. Either there will be some sort of arcology/vertical integration type deal where there are all these companies that are in effect subsidiaries of their chosen mobile technology provider, or, the more likely answer: IBM will make a metric crap ton of money supporting in-house Tizen[0] projects for serious people who don't want their IP floating around their mobile providers network 'secured' solely on good faith and contractual assurances.(ultimately this probably goes for cloud applications as well) 2) The second big appeal of mobile devices is the idea that you can program Angry Birds in your spare time, sell it 'directly'[1] to consumers and quit your day job. It seems to my rather cursory investigation that this isn't happening as much as it could be due to people duking it out nastily to try and secure maximal app store rent, and not doing enough to support developers. [0] Thank god they stopped calling it MeeGo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen [1] Honestly, 30% is reasonable marketplace rent. Documentation needs to be less opaque, and support for marketing analysis needs to be better for it to really be fair rent, but it's the standard marketing upsell in a lot of other industries, so it seems reasonable for apps as well.
jsz0 15y ago
I'm usually inclined to believe Apple has some good reasons for doing what they do but this seems like it's crossing the line. The built-in functionality of iOS and the Apple ecosystem is fantastic, and it's understandable they are given precedence, but if they are to so severely limit third party applications access to alternative services it would make iOS practically unusable for anyone outside of the Apple ecosystem. As much as I like iOS I really can't continue using it if I am unable to access DropBox in applications especially since there's no easy way to simply download the file from DropBox and edit it locally. Hopefully someone at Apple realizes this pretty much kills their platform. Cloud storage of different types are only going to become more important. (benefit of the doubt: Perhaps iOS6 has either DropBox integration or some other cloud storage abstraction and Apple wants to start discouraging developers from using a deprecated method of accessing DropBox. If so they should just come out and say it.)
judegomila 15y ago
I'm sure the competition commission in Europe will have something to say about this. Maybe a small $X billion fine or so.
randomStuff 15y ago
The US gov & EU need to go sue Apple like they did MicroSoft fo they anti competitive behavior w/respect to Windows Exploiter. Apple better recognize, federal trade commission done come after publishers that signed up for Apple's iBooks and agreed to collude on prices. Apple need da see the da light and reform they ways before it be too late and they need da settle wida govament
hastur 15y ago
I reject Apple and its products.
mrharrison 15y ago
This is nothing new, they have been doing this for the past year with news and magazine agencies offering subscriptions. Its not in retaliation to Dropbox being in competition with iCloud, its just part of their guidelines for selling subscriptions through the app store. Old news people.
jsilence 15y ago
Are you complaining about the height of the fence of the walled garden? Not to be meant as flamebait or trollposting, but as a brief reminder that this is a symptom of a closed ecosystem. I'd love to add "Remove the cause and not the symptoms", if I only knew a way that could seriously be suggested. But as long as every Joe and his dog simply love the iPhone, OpenSource mobile revolution is in the land of unicorns and golden glitter dreams.
oscardelben 15y ago
My github app was rejected for the same reason, users without an account could have bought one from the app if they wanted to.
skrebbel 15y ago
Is anyone really surprised? This is what happens if you give a single company so much control over your use of devices. It'll only get worse, we all know that, right?
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  In my view, it only gets BETTER -- hopefully this is the beginning wakeup call that will get people off of OSX. This has been going on for a long time too, Apple slowly making things more annoying for its users. Especially its developers. (For the record, I own 2 Macs, an iPhone, two Android devices, an iPod, and a PC, so I am not really biased in any given direction...)
  - fromhet 15y ago
    With "PC", you mean Windows. Right?
    - gavanwoolery 15y ago
      Yep, a bit of a vague term, but PC has kind of become a synonym for "Windows Machine" -- even though a Mac or Linux box is technically a PC as well...
- exim 15y ago
  Well, isn't this because that Apple somehow forgot about existence of such a basic concept as FILE?
  - lazugod 15y ago
    Are you referring to iOS not exposing a filesystem? If so, could you explain how it is relevant?
    - exim 15y ago
      Yes, and dropbox is used as a workaround (besides other things of course). I've even seen ios apps where file saving is done by e-mailing it.
denismars 15y ago
At some point a line will be crossed that will forever signify Apple's transition into the Orwellian entity it once rebelled against - that time may be upon us.
josteink 15y ago
I'm surprised it took Apple this long since launching (the relatively overpriced) iCloud before they started acting like they always do: anti-competitive and monopolistic. In the name of UX ofcourse. It couldn't possibly be because unethical market grabs tend to generate money. Remember: Apple doesn't really care about money. They care about you and all that money they make is just accidental.
- kapowaz 15y ago
  I'm surprised it took this long for an extremist, reactionary post like this to reach the top of the comments. Remember: Apple couldn't possibly be a large corporation whose objectives and principles occasionally conflict in a way which causes collateral damage to their users or developers. They only care about squeezing out the competition through any means necessary.
  - runn1ng 15y ago
    So what? They are acting monopolistically and unethically; this is a fact. The "collateral damage" is OK, if you don't have the majority; Apple does, however.
    - kapowaz 15y ago
      Ethics are objective now? I personally think it's a dodgy move on Apple's part, but I think the knee-jerk reaction is over the top, particularly given how Apple's policies on in-app-purchase are still quite nascent. It's easy to castigate this as a monopolistic move intended to benefit iCloud, but the reality is that Dropbox and iCloud aren't directly competing services. Really this is about how third-parties offer purchasable services from within iOS. There is a trade-off to be made between what offers the best user experience and what is practical for third-parties though, so I have to imagine Apple will eventually be more flexible.
- schraeds 15y ago
  It is a very clear and simple violation of current app store policy. Whether that policy make sense or not is a different question, but there is no conspiracy going on here. "Once the user is in Safari it is possible for the user to click "Desktop version" and navigate to a place on Dropbox site where it is possible to purchase additional space. Apple views this as "sending user to an additional purchase" which is against rules."
superxor 15y ago
This is a horrible way of treating 3rd party developers. Apple should keep in mind that one of the major reasons any platform has ever been successful is because of a strong suite of 3rd party applications, be it Windows, iOS or Android. Microsoft is paying its way to please developers and Apple is literally spitting on their face. I've had very bad experience dealing with Apple for the past couple of months. I am maintaining an app developed using Sencha and PhoneGap. Apple suddenly rejects an update, reason cited was 'the app is not dynamic enough'. When I inquire further, they ask me to implement Push Notifications. Implementing Push Notifications is not a problem, its just that I or my client have no freaking idea what data we could Push to the app. There is just no need for such a feature. It's obscenely preposterous for Apple to dictate what my App should be. I know I should be grateful that Apple has provided me a platform for writing apps (after all its their ecosystem), but I hope they keep in mind that 3rd party developers like me are an asset to them.
j_col 15y ago
The only thing I feel is sympathy for users who continue to buy Apple products.
bobwaycott 15y ago
Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this way (sorry, grew tired of all the arguing about Apple's villainy), but the bigger problem here is yet another app attempting to make money by building itself on top of another third-party app/service that is trying to make money and then crying when things go awry. Nearly all the complaints I see bubble up here on HN regarding Apple's App Store seem to come from devs who, rather than build a valuable service or app in its own right, think they have some great idea for leveraging other people's products/services/apps/APIs, etc. in some less-than-novel way. There is little innovation, little creativity, little in the way of building an app that is valuable on its own merits. This is lazy. Fuck everyone else's APIs and this lame practice of building whizbangs atop someone else's. Build a damn app that is worth something. Don't build shit that depends on your users creating accounts anywhere outside your control. Honestly, dislike Apple's guidelines all you like (I dislike plenty of them), but take a page from Apple's book and start to think about your app with the users first--think about how annoying it is to start up an app and then have to go through all the hassle of signing up or logging in with other people's/companies' services just to use your app. Think about your product the way Apple thinks about theirs: depend on yourself as much as possible to deliver an experience you control end-to-end.
- amirmc 15y ago
  What you're suggesting sounds like re-inventing the wheel.
saket123 15y ago
The sudden rejection of dropbox apps is blamed on 'bad user experience' by Apple, most of us know that its due to iCloud . So, in future if apple makes a games or buys a game company expect your games to be rejected from the app store as they 'are bad user experience' for IOS users or third party games are just not interesting enough. Don't let someone else make your choices , make it yourself.
- rsynnott 15y ago
  > The sudden rejection of dropbox apps is blamed on 'bad user experience' by Apple, most of us know that its due to iCloud . What? No. Did you read the linked forum thread, at all? It's due to the presence of a "Sign up with Dropbox" link in new versions of the SDK.
epaga 15y ago
Where are all these Apple bashers coming from? If Apple DIDN'T reject the apps using this API, Amazon and many, many devs would have the right to feel pretty angry at the injustice and inconsistency. In-app linking to extra-app purchasing of any kind is explicitly forbidden by the terms. We already had the "debate" about whether those terms are a good idea or not - I believe they're not. But months later it's more a question of Apple being consistent. So Dropbox updates their API (impressively within a single day!). Done deal. Let's move on to more important things like Apple inconsistently banning the "iKamaSutra" app after it's successfully been in the app store for years. Now THAT stuff scares me as a dev.
- tedivm 15y ago
  No one is saying the problem is that they aren't consistently applying their policies. Consistently applying a draconian policy is exactly the problem here.
  - epaga 15y ago
    But people DO seem to be surprised / disappointed that Apple is enforcing this draconian policy when in fact they have already been enforcing it for months as can be seen in the Kindle app and many others. And this is what I don't understand.
nicholassmith 15y ago
I've tried to defend some of Apple's more dickish policies in the past, as logically they make a lot of sense in terms of business requirements, and hey it's Apple's wild ride. This is fucking stupid though. The 30% cut logic works fine when dealing with items, but trying to apply it out to services is a nightmare as most users either don't care about the paid aspect of the service or have already paid for it. Plus all this effectively does is say 'if you've got a paid service with an API, you're not welcome'. Less API access on the iOS platform is not a good thing for developers, which makes it not a good thing for users, which makes it in the long run shitty for Apple. Lets hope they pull some sense together and fix the rule properly this time.
da_n 15y ago
At the risk of being labelled an Apple 'fanboi', let me play devil's advocate here. What if I created an SDK for developers that had a sign-up system linking to a new storage solution I had created called Dropboxplus.ru. In any app using this SDK it has a link that regular Joe can click where he is redirected to the Dropboxplus.ru website and offered an account upgrade option where the user just needs to put in their credit card details to 'unlock' new features etc. Now most people here will know that most consumers are utterly ignorant of what an API or SDK are, and barely even understand the concept of an 'App' (some of the reviews on the App Store I have seen critize Apple themselves for making such an app, they don't even understand there are third party developers who make the apps). My point is I don't think the walled garden is just for the sake of greed, I also think it is for the sake of consumers who unlike HN folk need a walled garden to keep them from doing dumb things. I think Apple want to ensure they can control where the user is enticed to part with money to keep them in their safety net. Do they do this in a fully transparent and open way? No, and maybe this is one area they can improve on to become less opaque, but if you play in their space you need to respect their TOS and this was a clear violation.
eblackburn 15y ago
I smell and anti-trust suite hurtling towards Apple? Does anyone else?
samstave 15y ago
the domain "droproxy.com" is available - someone should make a proxy service to dropbox that would bypass apple's actions.
jchrisa 15y ago
The Facebook SDK uses the same method. I wonder how long until it is rejected.
- evan_ 15y ago
  Can you buy a Facebook account from the mobile site?
  - v21 15y ago
    You can buy advertising.
salimmadjd 15y ago
What is the big deal? Lets have some context here first. One, apple is very clear about their rules. If you're surprised by them, it's really your fault for building a product without reading the guideline. Two, lets just remember, not long ago, how difficult it was to build or create anything for mobile prior to apple. Dropbox should just strike a deal with apple quick and give apple their 30% cut, instead of playing the victim here. The other option is the android and google drive, which I'm sure dropbox would rather not see becoming to big.
robomartin 15y ago
Well, the more fundamental problem is this business of Apple taking 30% of everything. I am not disputing their right to set the rules within their own ecosystem. No issues whatsoever there. It's their product and they deserve to do as they wish. Having said that, that is not to say that I agree with their decision. For almost any business 30% is a huge percentage of gross. In most cases the margin is dangerously close to or lower than this number. What this means is that there are a whole host of goods and services that cannot be offered through the platform due to their fee structure. Then again, it's their sandbox and their rules. This is somewhere where companies such as Microsoft could make a significant dent if they keep their paws off the content creator's revenue stream (or take a very small bite). In my opinion a 5% "finder's fee" is reasonable. If they handle the financial transaction then there's the customary credit-card billing stuff. Two things that iOS does not offer that someone could offer: 1- Less intrusive cut taken from revenues, as discussed above. 2- Open access to I/O, file system and various resources that Apple locks down tight. As an example, if I wanted to design a general purpose iPhone to RS-232 serial cable, well, it's impossible. You can make one married to a specific application but you can't make one that's a plain-old open-to-all serial port converter. There are tons of applications in industry that could use such a cable, but Apple chokes the hardware side so tight that even something that simple is impossible. Another example is the choke-hold on proprietary Bluetooth. I'd love to create apps for kids to use to control their Lego Mindstorms with an iPhone/iPod. Mindstorm blocks have built-in Bluetooth. Apple's version of Bluetooth, for various technical reasons, is not compatible with "normal" Bluetooth. The only way to do it is to purchase Apple-approved Bluetooth chips and get permission to build a device subject to their approval...but you can't build a generic device. In other words, you are building a specific speaker that uses this chip and these codes to identify you and the app. Period. I feel that companies trying to compete with Apple are not seeing the elephant in the room: Closed vs. Open.
wslh 15y ago
For me, the new controlled platforms make me laugh about previous Microsoft monopoly accusations. It seems like in the mobile and cloud space people do not have any voice or are brainwashed because the major part of the people, including HNers are accepting these rules.
ilkandi 15y ago
I must be old; if Microsoft had even suggested taking a 30% cut of every PC application or purchase via the internet they'd have been lynched. Have most developers gone conformist/apologist?
- Kaizyn 15y ago
  No, the difference is that in the days of yore, Microsoft wasn't the market maker for your applications. Now, with the Apple App Store(s), you are being put before a large potential customer base. Considering how easy it is to pirate applications on the Android platform and how many apps are pirated, the Apple way is the most pragmatic for software developers who want to get paid for their work. It isn't all that different than what you see elsewhere in the economy. Now that there are just a few large corporations who effectively control the food supply, they increasingly get a larger share of the profits at the expense of the many supplying farms. If there were 10 different Apple App Stores you could sell your applications through that were all of equal quality, then the cut Apple requires would drop off significantly.
0xDECAFFEE 15y ago
Apple seems to be pretty clueless with regard to companies using the enterprise developer program to sell outside of the wall. I know of several companies doing this already. I have notified Apple and they seem to not care about it. Maybe that's what they should do, give away the apps using the enterprise developer program and forgo the wall and app approval process.
akuchlous 15y ago
comic strip : apple can dropbox! http://nexthotstartup.com/2012/05/03/apple-dropbox/ http://nexthotstartup.com/2012/05/03/apple-dropbox/
marklindhout 15y ago
God dammit, this is so stupid. Fuck Apple. Fuck closed source know-it-all fascist companies. RAAAAAGH!

723 points by dannyr 15y ago

azov 15y ago

What Apple is doing seems to be completely legal and completely disgusting (and not at all new). Given that there's no ground for legal action, here are a few things we, developers, can do: 1. Don't work for Apple. This one is really the easiest to implement, there's more then enough fine alternatives in the Valley. 2. Don't develop for Apple. Unfortunately, not really an option for most mobile developers. So, the next best thing is "don't develop just for Apple". Make sure that if your customers want to switch, your app is available on other platforms. 3. Don't buy from Apple. Again, not really an option for developers because of #2 (and that's also another example of walled garden - you have to have a Mac to develop for iOS). One place where government regulation might be needed is to help create secondary market for apps. If I have many dollars worth of apps (or, say, books) and no way to sell them, this is obviously a big barrier to switch. I'd like to see a law requiring companies that sell digital goods to provide a way to transfer those goods to other users.

laxatives 15y ago
In my mind, Apple has always had the objective of trying to maximize purchases and forcing users who start to upgrade as often as possible. Everything else is secondary.
creamyhorror 15y ago
I like certain actions of my country's government (Singapore) in promoting competition: - forcing cable/telco companies to share the cost of broadcast rights to a major soccer tournament, despite the tournament corporation's remonstrations (previously the companies bidded for the exclusive rights against each other and passed the costs to consumers) - requiring telcos to provide number porting services so people can switch telcos without losing their numbers, thereby freeing them from lock-in These two actions cut the profits of the cable-telcos here but benefited consumers significantly. We would have been paying out the nose for soccer broadcasts otherwise, and been stuck with our old mobile providers even when competitors were offering better prices. In a marketplace as huge as the smartphone+app+media ecosystem, I'm quite sure governments should be stepping in with regulatory tweaks to make sure users can use multiple services on each platform - even buy from competitors. Antitrust law shouldn't just be against monopolies - it should be actively pro-competition.
kitsune_ 15y ago
As a consumer, I stopped buying Apple products some time ago. The last thing I bought from Apple was an iPhone 3GS. I still have to use Apple products at work. Now, I don't think that other companies are inherently more moral than Apple. That would be a foolish assumption. It's just that one company dominating an entire market is bad for almost everyone. If you develop mobile apps, only having one channel of distribution / platform is such a high risk. I don't understand developers that only target one platform.
chj 15y ago
yes, i will consider moral values over convenience in my future purchases and also i am going to favor platforms that are more open in future. freedom trumps everything, more profits doesn't necessary make you happier.

ihodes 15y ago

Flagged for the linkbait title (which is in fact the title of the forum post), but I'd love it if the title we just edited to actually reflect what was going on. Edit: To answer some comments; it's misleading because Apple is rejecting some applications which use Dropbox. Or, rather, a single one that we know of. For a reason other than "Dropbox is used by the application", to boot. A better title would explain what was actually happening (no offense to OP; I'm glad s/he cut out the editorializing). But I'm sitting here at -4, so it's unlikely this is seen :)

glhaynes 15y ago
It's linkbaity for sure but it seems entirely accurate, too.
tylermenezes 15y ago
I don't understand why this is linkbait? Apple is indeed rejecting apps which use Dropbox.
- taligent 15y ago
  No. They are blocking applications which allow you to make purchases without using Apples in app purchasing system. See the difference ?
  - antonID 15y ago
    ...and using the Dropbox SDK is apparently violating that
    - taligent 15y ago
      THIS version does. And a NEW version doesn't. There is no specific probelem with Dropbox.
      - sbov 15y ago
        But... there... was? Not too long ago? And it might require action by users of the Dropbox SDK? I get notifications of security updates for apache. Guess I shouldn't though, because by the time I get any it's no longer a problem with apache. Maybe I should tell my security auditor that?

AJ007 15y ago

I can not be the only one thinking there is an antitrust issue here? I would guess the book thing means Apple is under quite a bit of scrutiny. While I'm not involved in mobile, I've had similar experiences for over half a decade dealing with the banal, highly questionable, and non-uniformly enforced rules Google imposes on its own advertisers. Some of the stuff is bad enough it makes you think it would fall under RICO if this wasn't a large company but rather an Italian owned waste disposal company.

chc 15y ago
AFAIK, it would only be an antitrust issue if it were shown to be anticompetitive. If Apple is a monopoly or acting as part of an illegal trust, yeah, they're going to get smacked down. But I think the general consensus is that Android is a credible competitor to iOS and Windows is a more-than-credible competitor to Mac OS X, so Apple is not a monopoly.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
juxta 15y ago
i'm not too sure on the exact details of antitrust but this seems more ethical then antitrust. They are not disallowing the users from NOT being able to purchase more dropbox storage - as long as it goes their stream to purchase it (which results in them getting 30%). Wouldn't antitrust be that they are not allowing it all together on their platform? Wouldn't the same idea of you going to a movie theater and not allowing you to bring in your own food/candy - you must purchase it through them since they make more money from a transaction you would have done elsewhere?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- collision 15y ago
  Significant market share is enough for antitrust to be a concern. You don't need a monopoly, and indeed most companies engaging in anti-competitive behavior don't.

thought_alarm 15y ago

It's back to the old v0.3 Dropbox SDK for me. What a pain in the ass.

kennywinker 15y ago

This has gone way too far. The other day I downloaded the Google Play Books app. I started it up, signed in.. and nothing. No prompt to go buy books online, no hint at what the app does... just a blank screen. It's completely scummy. You can buy Apple's iCloud storage upgrade from within the OS, and now you can't even LINK to a place where you could link to a place where if you click the right link you could buy Dropbox storage.

davepeck 15y ago
It's awful, and it's painful for everyone -- not just those using the DropBox APIs. The origins of these clauses are with iBooks and the Kindle app for iOS. I wrote about it in a recent blog post: http://davepeck.org/2011/11/04/kindle-clauses/ http://davepeck.org/2011/11/04/kindle-clauses/
- nupark2 15y ago
  In terms of UX and as a consumer, I'd rather the Dropbox API not open a browser or even another app. That is not the best UX, it doesn't provide a security advantage, and it's simply not being done to benefit the consumer. This may not be Apple's primary rational for rejecting these apps, but I'm glad they're doing it. As for the payment question, simply in terms of UX and as a consumer, I want only one payment provider and account on the device. I hate pulling my credit card out and remembering my password for the nth account. Consumers are happy with the platform. Look at the sales numbers and earnings reports. Obviously companies like Dropbox see the value in the platform too -- I just wish they'd take the time to understand why it has that value, and why Apple has huge profits and very happy users.
  - cageface 15y ago
    I'd rather Apple give developers the choice and let user preference sort it out. In the long run the open market always wins.
    - nupark2 15y ago

tnash 15y ago

This is really going over the line. People are content in the walled garden, but if it starts getting too stuffy in there people will want to leave. Unfortunately it makes "business sense" (read: nonsense) for Apple to raise the walls of their walled garden as high as they can make them. Hopefully at some point there will be enough discontent to remove things like this.

taligent 15y ago
You mean the same line that has been in place for nearly 2 years ? Pretty sure most people don't care.
- tnash 15y ago
  Sure. Not right now, they don't. My point is that if Apple keeps pushing the walls higher on its garden at some point people will start complaining. iOS could very well become the Windows of mobile. I can imagine a future where a lot of people will complain "I don't want to use iOS, but it has all the apps!". I personally have owned an iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, and iPad and I will probably buy the upcoming iPhone. Apple's walled garden restrictions get on my nerves, but they've been a subtle annoyance. I can live with them, but at some point they'll stop being a nuisance and become a problem.
  - taligent 15y ago
    You seem to be confused. This Dropbox is the same rule that has been in places for years. In fact the walled garden is less evident than in the past.
    - CraigRood 15y ago
      No I don't think hes confused, I feel the same way. What made the Kindle issue "OK" is that Kindle was undermining the Apple marketplace. This is simply not the case here. Apple are just being 'assholes'. A link to a link, to a link that sells disk space - not even CONTENT. How does it undermine Apples business model, or hurt end users? Answer is, It doesn't.

chj 15y ago

this is an antitrust issue even if it isn't by law. sometimes i think developers should unite and pull all apps from appstore to protest.

k-mcgrady 15y ago

After reading through the thread it seems they are rejecting apps because a piece of the Dropbox SDK breaks the App Store guidelines. They are not simply rejecting Dropbox integrated apps. It's well known that you cannot link the user to make a purchase outside of the iOS ecosystem. It was a huge issue with the eBook apps last years. I'm not saying I agree with Apple's stance on that but they are not rejecting apps which use Dropbox because they don't like Dropbox. Dropbox is breaking the rules and as soon as they fix that (it seems they already have) there will be no more problems.

jsnell 15y ago
That wasn't really linking the user to make a purchase, it was somebody following a silly path of links from the initial target to arrive at a place where they could buy something. Maybe it was an honest (if overzealous) call by an app reviewer. Or maybe it was one of Apple's regular and brutal attempts at keeping direct competitors from benefiting from their platform. We don't know yet which, though I guess we'll know soon enough.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  It wasn't linking them directly but they eventually followed a path where the could make a purchase. I guess it's kind of a grey area but Apple's reviewers tend to side against you when it comes to grey areas. I don't totally agree with their stance on this but I can see why it was rejected.
thought_alarm 15y ago
They are rejecting apps that use the v1.0 or greater of the Dropbox SDK, or apps that use the Dropbox OAUTH API. Or, perhaps they're rejects apps that allow you to create a Dropbox account. That would cover all versions of the Dropbox SDK. The specific reasons they gave are: - "This app contains a link that takes the user to Dropbox via Safari". - "The concern with this app is that the user is taken to Dropbox's website, if they do not have Dropbox installed on their device, where they have the option to purchase additional storage space." How would you read that? They seem to suggest that you can't link to any page on dropbox.com. The problem is that neither Dropbox's login page nor their create-account page provide any links for purchasing anything, nor do they provide links to Dropbox's main site. http://rfc64k.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dj-xhtrivxl.png http://rfc64k.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dj-xhtrivxl.png So it seems that merely because the login page is hosted at Dropbox.com, it is forbidden because Dropbox.com can be used for purchasing things. That would rule out all forms of OAUTH. Their proposed solution was to remove the "Create Account" link, but it's not at all clear whether that was the original problem, or whether it solves anything. The bottom line is that if your app currently uses any version of the Dropbox SDK or the Dropbox OAUTH API your app may be rejected and you're now in a state of limbo.

bitops 15y ago

Since I see a lot of people using the term "antitrust" incorrectly in this article, here is a Wikipedia link on United States antitrust law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

ianloic 15y ago

Apple has been doing this with other APIs for a while. If your app links to a way of signing up for an account that could be used to pay for something you'll be rejected. If you mention the existence of such an account you'll probably be rejected. Personally I don't like being treated like this - as a user or a developer. So I take my time and money elsewhere.

trieu 15y ago

This is linkbait because it suggests that Apple is rejecting any app that uses Dropbox. That's patently untrue. For example: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts/id502385074 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts/id502385074 It looks like Apple is rejecting apps that use the Dropbox SDK in a way that violates the TOS. But then the headline may as well read, "Apple rejecting applications which use code."

rogerchucker 15y ago
So bloody what if it is linkbait? The issue at hand deserves attention and debate.
chc 15y ago
Based on what Apple seem to be indicating to the people in the OP thread, it's the behavior of the Dropbox SDK itself that they're objecting to. If Drafts made it through by anything except dumb luck, Agile Tortoise must either a) have gone out of its way to circumvent how the SDK normally works, or b) be using a deprecated SDK version from before Apple started objecting. (I don't have Drafts or I'd check to myself, but feel free to check the SDK version if you do.)
nknight 15y ago
You should look up what "linkbait" actually means. A forum discussion between developers about a problem using the Dropbox SDK in the iOS app store assuredly does not qualify.
- neotek 15y ago
  I think he's referring to the article title, which makes an implication that seems designed to cause anger over a policy that isn't quite as corrupt as the title might suggest.

stbullard 15y ago

Looking at the link, it seems that only those apps using the latest version of Dropbox's SDK (1.2) are being rejected, for violating Apple's long-standing platform policies. Dropbox has since released a version of their SDK without the offending links. Is that a fair assessment?

5teev 15y ago
Yeah, I hear a lot of complaining about Apple here, but not much about how Dropbox's SDK update broke apps that would otherwise be approved, and now Dropbox has a new version that fixes the problem.

starnix17 15y ago

I had a simliar rejection because of my app's Rdio integration. If the user had Rdio installed, my app would open the song in the Rdio native app. If the user didn't have the app installed, my app would open the song on the Rdio web site in MobileSafari. Apple didn't like this since you could purchase an Rdio subscription on that webpage bypassing the IAP and Apple's 30% cut.

rogerchucker 15y ago
I am waiting for that research paper titled "What came first for Apple - the money or the user experience?". I can imagine Apple's thinking here - if we can squeeze every 3rd party service to adopt our 30% cut, then (1) we'll add more to our bottomline and (2) people will have a better UX (or more precisely can go back to their old smoother and better UX). Question is - did I get the order right?
- saurik 15y ago
  The 30% "apple tax" on their App Store is not a major way that Apple makes money (more on this in paragraph 2). This leads to the conclusion that Apple is not attempting to hobble stores that undercut them: they simply like using their control of the store ecosystem to maintain the quality, simplicity, and consistency of the experience that allows them to provide to their customers, with the nice side effect of giving them massive leverage over their largest competitors and power over many external markets. I'd thereby reverse the order you have. Checking the numbers, the profit margin on an iPhone is a little over $170, while the profit margin on an app is <<$1; most of the people I know who own an iPhone have purchased at least two of them (an upgrade a couple years later) and have purchased maybe, at most, 10 apps. If you check the Apple quarterly earnings reports Apple doesn't even bother separating App Store sales from iPod accessories: both are a tiny line item in comparison to the profit they make on their actual profit center (core hardware). However, for content resources, such as books or music, the story is much different: I know people who have purchased many thousands of dollars of music, movies, and television shows from iTunes over the years. This is enough that the iPod and AppleTV can be effectively subsidized by iTunes (something you don't see Apple doing with the iPhone: they make certain to get their profit on that at the point of sale, possibly plus a carrier subsidy). This is why this issue starts coming to the forefront for services like Rdio and Kindle: those actually hit Apple where it hurts, so Apple would prefer to use their control to hobble their opponents. But, Apple doesn't really want 30% of the revenue from these sales... it would be much better for Apple if they just went away, and people used iTunes instead. (I make this clear, as that is why I then don't feel it accurate to use this as an argument for the 30% being a primary concern.)

snarkinatree 15y ago

What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no matter how much money they make.:wq

taligent 15y ago
It also says a lot about you that you posted this whilst having a fundamental lack of knowledge about the situation. Did you even read what you linked to ?
- snarkinatree 15y ago
  What did I link to? I'm well aware of the Apple "rules" as well as the rationale behind them. If you have superiror knowledge about Apple that puts them in a better light, then please share details.
  - taligent 15y ago
    Your title claims that Apple is rejecting apps which use Dropbox. Which is completely and utterly wrong.
    - snarkinatree 15y ago
      My "title"?
- oblique63 15y ago
  I understand that you've been trying to make the point that this is a non-story (and I would agree with you, to an extent), but that was just rude and uncalled for. Is it wrong for the GP to try and start a conversation about the morality of a company as large as apple, demanding such a large degree of separation between users and the ability to make purchases outside apple's control? I'm about as 'anti-apple' as they come, and even I can see it was just a case of Dropbox's sdk doing something against apple's rules, but that doesn't mean what that what apple's doing is 'right', or even necessary for a corporation as large as them, which is what I believe the GP was hinting at. In my opinion it's just business as usual. Just look at wall street, and all the large oil corporations and such; a company as large as apple doing something dubious is not exactly shocking. If anything, that's what got these large corporations to where they are in the first place. Is it sad? sure, but it's nothing that we haven't seen before...

andrewparker 15y ago

Do any of the readers on this thread work at Apple? I'd love to have you chime in. The silence is deafening...

bryanlarsen 15y ago
I'm fairly sure that a comment on this thread by an Apple employee would result in a pretty quick firing. It's a pretty tight ship over there.
- tar 15y ago
  This shows just how differently Apple works. I've seen people from Google and Facebook commenting here whenever issues come up.
  - bruceboughton 15y ago
    You sound surprised.
taligent 15y ago
Ive worked for Apple and it is no different to any other company. A policy was put in place that governs the rules around when apps should be rejected or not. The rules haven't really changed for a while now. The current version of Dropbox SDK violated the in app purchasing rules which app developers unwittingly used. Hence their apps were rejected. People forget that the employees who are auditing these apps are the equivalent of customer service reps. They aren't developers and their job is to be objective and simply follow the rules.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Precisely, what's the offending rule?
  - evan_ 15y ago
    11.13, as the second post in the linked forum thread states. For an explanation: http://www.macstories.net/stories/11-13-and-the-dropbox-sdk/ http://www.macstories.net/stories/11-13-and-the-dropbox-sdk/

AncientPC 15y ago

I don't understand why people think this is new. I created a website that announced the launch of a small mobile app for both iOS and Android platforms. I was told by Apple that my app would not be approved as long as I had links to competitors (i.e. Android) on the web site.

premise 15y ago
How’s that possible? There’re a lot of (thousands?) multi-platform apps for iOS, Android, Blackberry etc. For instance, Angry Birds has versions for “iPhone/iPad/OS X,” “Nokia Devices,” and “Android (Amazon/Google Play)” on their website: http://shop.angrybirds.com/us/games/mobile-games.html http://shop.angrybirds.com/us/games/mobile-games.html Needless to say, the full list of platforms Angry Birds runs on is (according to Wikipedia) much bigger.
- AncientPC 15y ago
  I don't know, we were a really small shop? It was the first app launch, and we prominently showed an iPhone and a Nexus side by side with our app. Whoever reviewed our app didn't like that, so we took the Nexus image down. We probably could have just posted the old design back up after the app got approved, but the company didn't last very long past that.

jpdoctor 15y ago

The message is clear: If you put apple in your critical path, prepare for crap like this.

valgaze 15y ago

To get a sense of Apple's power: Via Amazon, download any sample chapter to Kindle on iPad/iPhone. Scroll to the end and click "Buy Now" this is what you'll see: http://i.imgur.com/Flqfp.png http://i.imgur.com/Flqfp.png This power is good when it comes to muscling user-friendly dataplans from carriers, but with other stuff they are really playing hardball

Tloewald 15y ago
This is Amazon's way of handling the issue. Another option would be to cut a deal with Apple. Anyone having a free sample on their Kindle app presumably got it from Amazon's website and knows how to buy the full version. Compare this with trying to read a Nook, iBookstore, or DRM free ePub on a Kindle Fire. I'm sure it can be done, but it's well hidden.
nooneelse 15y ago
Apple cares so much about user experience that they encourage/pressure other services to break theirs.

charlieok 15y ago

The "remote storage" category seems to be the new platform battle. Apps and their per-user storage are becoming more decoupled (which is a good thing) and people are going to be picking a place to consolidate their personal storage. Companies offering this type of service are adding features to differentiate and (probably) increase lockin. Wherever users put their data, and whatever remote storage developers support with their apps, will become entrenched. Some big players so far (?): Dropbox Box SugarSync Google Drive Microsoft SkyDrive Apple iCloud? A stardization effort: http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage

petercooper 15y ago

While here, let's remember who'll control the dev certificate validity for Gatekeeper on OS X 10.8. Will we end up with cases where people break arbitrary yet-to-be-defined terms and boom, their standalone app no longer works on a default OS X install?

mcantelon 15y ago
Yeah, the Lion default, if I remember correctly, is signed apps only. Apple is really pushing to become an entity devs and publishers must pay tax to.
- protomyth 15y ago
  That is the Mountain Lion default, not Lion.
hej 15y ago
Unlikely. We already have one example where Apple is enforcing the “no malware” rule and that’s the App Store. On the App Store, Apple reserves itself the right to not only remove apps from the store (which Apple has done often and we know a lot about) but also to actually remotely pull apps from users’ devices. Apple claims they will only actually remotely pull apps if said apps are malware. That’s the exact same rule they seem to want to apply in the future to third party apps on the Mac outside the App Store. I do not think Apple ever pulled an app from iOS devices. They certainly never used that right for apps that were rejected or removed from the App Store (e.g. tethering apps). They seem to really only want to pull true malware and don’t seem to apply some contorted definition of malware here. (E.g. I’m sure carriers would claim that tethering apps cause them much damage, hence they are malware, Apple doesn’t follow that definition of malware, though.)
- toomanysecrets 15y ago
  > but also to actually remotely pull apps from users’ devices [Citation Needed]
  - 15y ago

sev 15y ago

Dropbox...design a slicker phone and a better phone OS than Apple, now is your chance!

beedogs 15y ago

Apple's really become a shitty company in the past few years. I was rooting for them when OS X was introduced, but now they're no better than Microsoft in the late 90s, and somehow more arrogant than MS ever was. How does something like this not run afoul of antitrust laws?

Tloewald 15y ago
If Apple were like Microsoft in the 90s then they would have implemented their own Flash player for the iPad and made its frequent crashes look like Adobe's fault, they'd make it impossible to uninstall or remove Safari from the desktop or dock, and switch Chrome and Firefox for Safari as your default browser every time you upgraded Safari (which would be every time you patched). Every time a mew version of OSX shipped, competing third party apps would become unstable. Software compiled with non Apple tools would generate bogus error messages on pre-release copies of OSX. Apple would develop its own version of Java that ran faster but encouraged developers to use features not available in Java. They'd also bundle apps together so that anyone buying Apple's popular video editor, say, would have a free image editing and page layout programs. They'd steal code from third party developers and turn them into free add ons for their OSes. Oh and they'd simply kill off competitors by releasing free clones of their products. They'd license their OS to hardware vendors on the condition that those vendors pay a license fee for every box shipped even if it didn't have the OS installed. When successfully sued for misconduct, they'd pay some of the fines in the form of strategic donations of software to their competitors' best customers. Each of these items can be mapped directly to something Microsoft has been demonstrated to have done in the 90s.
- Duff 15y ago
  I recall using Netscape in 1998 or so on Windows Nt. Where do I find the download link for Chrome or Safari on iOS?
  - Tloewald 15y ago
    Did google try to release chrome for ios and get blocked by Apple and I didn't hear about it? There are a ton of third party web browsers for ios.

salem 15y ago

If Microsoft pulled a move like this there would be hell to pay

siculars 15y ago

Someone explain to me how what Apple is doing is not the same sort of monopoly the government squashed with Microsoft. Basically MS used their os monopoly to push IE. Apple uses its monopoly to get a cut of all action on its phone.

latch 15y ago
It isn't even funny just how different it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_...

peterkelly 15y ago

Wow, this really freaked me out when I saw this. I've just spent several months working on an app, which I hope to release soon, of which Dropbox support is a major feature. If they didn't allow my app on the app store because of this I'd have to seriously cripple the functionality of my app to get it accepted. Sure, there's iCloud, but it's only about 50% there - all the support is there on iOS but there's no generic way to get at your iCloud documents from a PC or Mac in the same way you can with Dropbox and similar services. I'd be happy to support iCloud if it did this but it's simply not there yet. Dropbox is a hugely important thing for iOS apps, since the iPad provides no generic user-accessible file system. Dropbox is by far the most convenient way I've seen for syncing data between the iPad and your computer, and I think Apple would be foolish to prevent people from doing this because it would make using an iPad for content creation-type work very inconvenient. Fortunately from reading about this it sounds like the issue can be resolved by changing the way the account authorisation step works. Dropbox have already released an updated SDK and I've just downloaded this to try it out.

josteink 15y ago
So you saw how Apple burned all the bridges between you and your customers, and left just a thin rope for you to hang on to. You just saw this and still you think basing your business on anything controlled by Apple is a good idea? Seriously?

vegas 15y ago

Microsoft eventually overcame Apple's superior market position and better product because the market is going to act to increase choice on the part of intelligent consumers of information technology(i.e. competitive organizations). Apple was able to superscede Microsoft's platform advantage because everything became a web application(thanks Netscape!) At the moment a bunch of guys with drool on their spreadsheets are trying to turn the world of web applications back into a platform one so that they can collect rent. It seems like this particular escape from freedom isn't going to occur because: 1) A major appeal of mobile devices is the idea that you can give people who are disinclined to serious computer literacy a tool that is easier to secure, and requires less support staff to show them how to use. * However, it seems unlikely that large profit seeking organizations will thrive by handing their nervous systems over to other large profit seeking organizations. Ultimately companies are going to want their locked down devices for their less computer literate employees to be completely within their control. Either there will be some sort of arcology/vertical integration type deal where there are all these companies that are in effect subsidiaries of their chosen mobile technology provider, or, the more likely answer: IBM will make a metric crap ton of money supporting in-house Tizen[0] projects for serious people who don't want their IP floating around their mobile providers network 'secured' solely on good faith and contractual assurances.(ultimately this probably goes for cloud applications as well) 2) The second big appeal of mobile devices is the idea that you can program Angry Birds in your spare time, sell it 'directly'[1] to consumers and quit your day job. It seems to my rather cursory investigation that this isn't happening as much as it could be due to people duking it out nastily to try and secure maximal app store rent, and not doing enough to support developers. [0] Thank god they stopped calling it MeeGo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen [1] Honestly, 30% is reasonable marketplace rent. Documentation needs to be less opaque, and support for marketing analysis needs to be better for it to really be fair rent, but it's the standard marketing upsell in a lot of other industries, so it seems reasonable for apps as well.

jsz0 15y ago

I'm usually inclined to believe Apple has some good reasons for doing what they do but this seems like it's crossing the line. The built-in functionality of iOS and the Apple ecosystem is fantastic, and it's understandable they are given precedence, but if they are to so severely limit third party applications access to alternative services it would make iOS practically unusable for anyone outside of the Apple ecosystem. As much as I like iOS I really can't continue using it if I am unable to access DropBox in applications especially since there's no easy way to simply download the file from DropBox and edit it locally. Hopefully someone at Apple realizes this pretty much kills their platform. Cloud storage of different types are only going to become more important. (benefit of the doubt: Perhaps iOS6 has either DropBox integration or some other cloud storage abstraction and Apple wants to start discouraging developers from using a deprecated method of accessing DropBox. If so they should just come out and say it.)

judegomila 15y ago

I'm sure the competition commission in Europe will have something to say about this. Maybe a small $X billion fine or so.

randomStuff 15y ago

The US gov & EU need to go sue Apple like they did MicroSoft fo they anti competitive behavior w/respect to Windows Exploiter. Apple better recognize, federal trade commission done come after publishers that signed up for Apple's iBooks and agreed to collude on prices. Apple need da see the da light and reform they ways before it be too late and they need da settle wida govament

hastur 15y ago

I reject Apple and its products.

mrharrison 15y ago

This is nothing new, they have been doing this for the past year with news and magazine agencies offering subscriptions. Its not in retaliation to Dropbox being in competition with iCloud, its just part of their guidelines for selling subscriptions through the app store. Old news people.

jsilence 15y ago

Are you complaining about the height of the fence of the walled garden? Not to be meant as flamebait or trollposting, but as a brief reminder that this is a symptom of a closed ecosystem. I'd love to add "Remove the cause and not the symptoms", if I only knew a way that could seriously be suggested. But as long as every Joe and his dog simply love the iPhone, OpenSource mobile revolution is in the land of unicorns and golden glitter dreams.

oscardelben 15y ago

My github app was rejected for the same reason, users without an account could have bought one from the app if they wanted to.

skrebbel 15y ago

Is anyone really surprised? This is what happens if you give a single company so much control over your use of devices. It'll only get worse, we all know that, right?

gavanwoolery 15y ago
In my view, it only gets BETTER -- hopefully this is the beginning wakeup call that will get people off of OSX. This has been going on for a long time too, Apple slowly making things more annoying for its users. Especially its developers. (For the record, I own 2 Macs, an iPhone, two Android devices, an iPod, and a PC, so I am not really biased in any given direction...)
- fromhet 15y ago
  With "PC", you mean Windows. Right?
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    Yep, a bit of a vague term, but PC has kind of become a synonym for "Windows Machine" -- even though a Mac or Linux box is technically a PC as well...
exim 15y ago
Well, isn't this because that Apple somehow forgot about existence of such a basic concept as FILE?
- lazugod 15y ago
  Are you referring to iOS not exposing a filesystem? If so, could you explain how it is relevant?
  - exim 15y ago
    Yes, and dropbox is used as a workaround (besides other things of course). I've even seen ios apps where file saving is done by e-mailing it.

denismars 15y ago

At some point a line will be crossed that will forever signify Apple's transition into the Orwellian entity it once rebelled against - that time may be upon us.

josteink 15y ago

I'm surprised it took Apple this long since launching (the relatively overpriced) iCloud before they started acting like they always do: anti-competitive and monopolistic. In the name of UX ofcourse. It couldn't possibly be because unethical market grabs tend to generate money. Remember: Apple doesn't really care about money. They care about you and all that money they make is just accidental.

kapowaz 15y ago
I'm surprised it took this long for an extremist, reactionary post like this to reach the top of the comments. Remember: Apple couldn't possibly be a large corporation whose objectives and principles occasionally conflict in a way which causes collateral damage to their users or developers. They only care about squeezing out the competition through any means necessary.
- runn1ng 15y ago
  So what? They are acting monopolistically and unethically; this is a fact. The "collateral damage" is OK, if you don't have the majority; Apple does, however.
  - kapowaz 15y ago
    Ethics are objective now? I personally think it's a dodgy move on Apple's part, but I think the knee-jerk reaction is over the top, particularly given how Apple's policies on in-app-purchase are still quite nascent. It's easy to castigate this as a monopolistic move intended to benefit iCloud, but the reality is that Dropbox and iCloud aren't directly competing services. Really this is about how third-parties offer purchasable services from within iOS. There is a trade-off to be made between what offers the best user experience and what is practical for third-parties though, so I have to imagine Apple will eventually be more flexible.
schraeds 15y ago
It is a very clear and simple violation of current app store policy. Whether that policy make sense or not is a different question, but there is no conspiracy going on here. "Once the user is in Safari it is possible for the user to click "Desktop version" and navigate to a place on Dropbox site where it is possible to purchase additional space. Apple views this as "sending user to an additional purchase" which is against rules."

superxor 15y ago

This is a horrible way of treating 3rd party developers. Apple should keep in mind that one of the major reasons any platform has ever been successful is because of a strong suite of 3rd party applications, be it Windows, iOS or Android. Microsoft is paying its way to please developers and Apple is literally spitting on their face. I've had very bad experience dealing with Apple for the past couple of months. I am maintaining an app developed using Sencha and PhoneGap. Apple suddenly rejects an update, reason cited was 'the app is not dynamic enough'. When I inquire further, they ask me to implement Push Notifications. Implementing Push Notifications is not a problem, its just that I or my client have no freaking idea what data we could Push to the app. There is just no need for such a feature. It's obscenely preposterous for Apple to dictate what my App should be. I know I should be grateful that Apple has provided me a platform for writing apps (after all its their ecosystem), but I hope they keep in mind that 3rd party developers like me are an asset to them.

j_col 15y ago

The only thing I feel is sympathy for users who continue to buy Apple products.

bobwaycott 15y ago

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this way (sorry, grew tired of all the arguing about Apple's villainy), but the bigger problem here is yet another app attempting to make money by building itself on top of another third-party app/service that is trying to make money and then crying when things go awry. Nearly all the complaints I see bubble up here on HN regarding Apple's App Store seem to come from devs who, rather than build a valuable service or app in its own right, think they have some great idea for leveraging other people's products/services/apps/APIs, etc. in some less-than-novel way. There is little innovation, little creativity, little in the way of building an app that is valuable on its own merits. This is lazy. Fuck everyone else's APIs and this lame practice of building whizbangs atop someone else's. Build a damn app that is worth something. Don't build shit that depends on your users creating accounts anywhere outside your control. Honestly, dislike Apple's guidelines all you like (I dislike plenty of them), but take a page from Apple's book and start to think about your app with the users first--think about how annoying it is to start up an app and then have to go through all the hassle of signing up or logging in with other people's/companies' services just to use your app. Think about your product the way Apple thinks about theirs: depend on yourself as much as possible to deliver an experience you control end-to-end.

amirmc 15y ago
What you're suggesting sounds like re-inventing the wheel.

saket123 15y ago

The sudden rejection of dropbox apps is blamed on 'bad user experience' by Apple, most of us know that its due to iCloud . So, in future if apple makes a games or buys a game company expect your games to be rejected from the app store as they 'are bad user experience' for IOS users or third party games are just not interesting enough. Don't let someone else make your choices , make it yourself.

rsynnott 15y ago
> The sudden rejection of dropbox apps is blamed on 'bad user experience' by Apple, most of us know that its due to iCloud . What? No. Did you read the linked forum thread, at all? It's due to the presence of a "Sign up with Dropbox" link in new versions of the SDK.

epaga 15y ago

Where are all these Apple bashers coming from? If Apple DIDN'T reject the apps using this API, Amazon and many, many devs would have the right to feel pretty angry at the injustice and inconsistency. In-app linking to extra-app purchasing of any kind is explicitly forbidden by the terms. We already had the "debate" about whether those terms are a good idea or not - I believe they're not. But months later it's more a question of Apple being consistent. So Dropbox updates their API (impressively within a single day!). Done deal. Let's move on to more important things like Apple inconsistently banning the "iKamaSutra" app after it's successfully been in the app store for years. Now THAT stuff scares me as a dev.

tedivm 15y ago
No one is saying the problem is that they aren't consistently applying their policies. Consistently applying a draconian policy is exactly the problem here.
- epaga 15y ago
  But people DO seem to be surprised / disappointed that Apple is enforcing this draconian policy when in fact they have already been enforcing it for months as can be seen in the Kindle app and many others. And this is what I don't understand.

nicholassmith 15y ago

I've tried to defend some of Apple's more dickish policies in the past, as logically they make a lot of sense in terms of business requirements, and hey it's Apple's wild ride. This is fucking stupid though. The 30% cut logic works fine when dealing with items, but trying to apply it out to services is a nightmare as most users either don't care about the paid aspect of the service or have already paid for it. Plus all this effectively does is say 'if you've got a paid service with an API, you're not welcome'. Less API access on the iOS platform is not a good thing for developers, which makes it not a good thing for users, which makes it in the long run shitty for Apple. Lets hope they pull some sense together and fix the rule properly this time.

da_n 15y ago

At the risk of being labelled an Apple 'fanboi', let me play devil's advocate here. What if I created an SDK for developers that had a sign-up system linking to a new storage solution I had created called Dropboxplus.ru. In any app using this SDK it has a link that regular Joe can click where he is redirected to the Dropboxplus.ru website and offered an account upgrade option where the user just needs to put in their credit card details to 'unlock' new features etc. Now most people here will know that most consumers are utterly ignorant of what an API or SDK are, and barely even understand the concept of an 'App' (some of the reviews on the App Store I have seen critize Apple themselves for making such an app, they don't even understand there are third party developers who make the apps). My point is I don't think the walled garden is just for the sake of greed, I also think it is for the sake of consumers who unlike HN folk need a walled garden to keep them from doing dumb things. I think Apple want to ensure they can control where the user is enticed to part with money to keep them in their safety net. Do they do this in a fully transparent and open way? No, and maybe this is one area they can improve on to become less opaque, but if you play in their space you need to respect their TOS and this was a clear violation.

eblackburn 15y ago

I smell and anti-trust suite hurtling towards Apple? Does anyone else?

samstave 15y ago

the domain "droproxy.com" is available - someone should make a proxy service to dropbox that would bypass apple's actions.

jchrisa 15y ago

The Facebook SDK uses the same method. I wonder how long until it is rejected.

evan_ 15y ago
Can you buy a Facebook account from the mobile site?
- v21 15y ago
  You can buy advertising.

salimmadjd 15y ago

What is the big deal? Lets have some context here first. One, apple is very clear about their rules. If you're surprised by them, it's really your fault for building a product without reading the guideline. Two, lets just remember, not long ago, how difficult it was to build or create anything for mobile prior to apple. Dropbox should just strike a deal with apple quick and give apple their 30% cut, instead of playing the victim here. The other option is the android and google drive, which I'm sure dropbox would rather not see becoming to big.

robomartin 15y ago

Well, the more fundamental problem is this business of Apple taking 30% of everything. I am not disputing their right to set the rules within their own ecosystem. No issues whatsoever there. It's their product and they deserve to do as they wish. Having said that, that is not to say that I agree with their decision. For almost any business 30% is a huge percentage of gross. In most cases the margin is dangerously close to or lower than this number. What this means is that there are a whole host of goods and services that cannot be offered through the platform due to their fee structure. Then again, it's their sandbox and their rules. This is somewhere where companies such as Microsoft could make a significant dent if they keep their paws off the content creator's revenue stream (or take a very small bite). In my opinion a 5% "finder's fee" is reasonable. If they handle the financial transaction then there's the customary credit-card billing stuff. Two things that iOS does not offer that someone could offer: 1- Less intrusive cut taken from revenues, as discussed above. 2- Open access to I/O, file system and various resources that Apple locks down tight. As an example, if I wanted to design a general purpose iPhone to RS-232 serial cable, well, it's impossible. You can make one married to a specific application but you can't make one that's a plain-old open-to-all serial port converter. There are tons of applications in industry that could use such a cable, but Apple chokes the hardware side so tight that even something that simple is impossible. Another example is the choke-hold on proprietary Bluetooth. I'd love to create apps for kids to use to control their Lego Mindstorms with an iPhone/iPod. Mindstorm blocks have built-in Bluetooth. Apple's version of Bluetooth, for various technical reasons, is not compatible with "normal" Bluetooth. The only way to do it is to purchase Apple-approved Bluetooth chips and get permission to build a device subject to their approval...but you can't build a generic device. In other words, you are building a specific speaker that uses this chip and these codes to identify you and the app. Period. I feel that companies trying to compete with Apple are not seeing the elephant in the room: Closed vs. Open.

wslh 15y ago

For me, the new controlled platforms make me laugh about previous Microsoft monopoly accusations. It seems like in the mobile and cloud space people do not have any voice or are brainwashed because the major part of the people, including HNers are accepting these rules.

ilkandi 15y ago

I must be old; if Microsoft had even suggested taking a 30% cut of every PC application or purchase via the internet they'd have been lynched. Have most developers gone conformist/apologist?

Kaizyn 15y ago
No, the difference is that in the days of yore, Microsoft wasn't the market maker for your applications. Now, with the Apple App Store(s), you are being put before a large potential customer base. Considering how easy it is to pirate applications on the Android platform and how many apps are pirated, the Apple way is the most pragmatic for software developers who want to get paid for their work. It isn't all that different than what you see elsewhere in the economy. Now that there are just a few large corporations who effectively control the food supply, they increasingly get a larger share of the profits at the expense of the many supplying farms. If there were 10 different Apple App Stores you could sell your applications through that were all of equal quality, then the cut Apple requires would drop off significantly.

0xDECAFFEE 15y ago

Apple seems to be pretty clueless with regard to companies using the enterprise developer program to sell outside of the wall. I know of several companies doing this already. I have notified Apple and they seem to not care about it. Maybe that's what they should do, give away the apps using the enterprise developer program and forgo the wall and app approval process.

akuchlous 15y ago

comic strip : apple can dropbox! http://nexthotstartup.com/2012/05/03/apple-dropbox/ http://nexthotstartup.com/2012/05/03/apple-dropbox/

marklindhout 15y ago

God dammit, this is so stupid. Fuck Apple. Fuck closed source know-it-all fascist companies. RAAAAAGH!