24 ms·

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

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
      In the long run the open market doesn't behave independently rational and doesn't 'win' anything -- it simply is. If Apple wasn't forcing the larger industry to learn how to turn a profit by putting users first, the market would simply saturate the app store with whatever existent concepts are popular today. Remember, prior to iOS, the Mac OS X market was both cry user friendly and very insular. Now, iOS has gone mainstream, but Apple's user-friendly focus hasn't (yet?). Of course, your open market does still exist -- users can choose Android, which thrives on the notion of 'user choice'.
      - bad_user 15y ago
        Of course, your open market does still exist -- users can choose Android, which thrives on the notion of 'user choice'. That's one reason why I, as a consumer, chose Android in the first place. When I decided to buy a smartphone, I wanted one that allowed me to block calls and SMS messages completely, without leaving traces in the calls/sms logs. I wanted this because somehow my number ended up on a lot of spam lists and a smartphone should be smart about these things, right? If my email address is protected by spam filters, it should be a no-brainer for my smartphone to do the same for calls and SMS. Imagine my surprise when I found out that such apps are banned from the iTunes App Store and that the only way to get such functionality on iOS was for me to root it and install software through Cydia. And why should I as a consumer go through so many hoops to use such software, when the company (that receives my money in the process) is actively hostile to my use case, a use case which is in no way immoral or unjustified. When it comes to Android, building an app that blocks calls and SMS messages is still hard, as the APIs you have to rely on are private and keep changing, so the results are unpredictable. But upon a search on Google Play, I did find one that works well, installed with a single click. And I didn't have to root my phone. Now that's what openness gets you - user experience is important, but it's all for nothing if the apps allowed don't solve your real problems.
    - rmc 15y ago
      In the long run the open market always wins. The App Store is not an open market, nor is it intended to be an open market.
  - davepeck 15y ago
    I think we're actually in agreement about the positive effect of these clauses, at least for some users. I certainly want simplicity and unity in my experience too. We perhaps disagree about the motivations behind the clauses, but without inside knowledge I suppose we'll never know for certain. The piece that perhaps I didn't express clearly enough: there are cases where developers -- even the good ones, who care deeply about doing the right thing for their users -- are boxed in and, no matter how much they would like to play by Apple's rules, are unable to for one reason or another. The result is often worse for users. It's the unintended consequences of the "Kindle Clauses" that I find so interesting; that was what motivated my original blog post.
  - wvenable 15y ago
    The problem is Dropbox isn't exclusively an iOS app. So you can sign up for Dropbox directly and they get 100% of the fee or you can sign up through Apple and they get 70%. That might be more than their entire profit. They can't even make iOS purchases more expensive even if perhaps someone like you might pay 30% more for the privilege of a single payment provider. The fact is that Apple is the one that requires apps to open the browser in the first place. It's rule upon rules upon rules. I'm an iOS user and I'm not happy with this aspect of platform, if that means anything.
    - adgar 15y ago
      > So you can sign up for Dropbox directly and they get 100% of the fee or you can sign up through Apple and they get 70%. That might be more than their entire profit. (Emphasis mine) Sounds like it might be time to find a new business plan, then.
      - iloverobots 15y ago
        Many businesses (especially in the technology space) operate on far lower margins than 30%.
        tomgallard 15y ago
        Really? Are you talking gross or net profit? I would be surprised to find many software products where the gross profit margin would be less than 50%.
        shod 15y ago
        Dropbox isn't a software product; it's a service. What's more, it's a service that needs to be priced to compete with Apple's own iCloud.
        batista 15y ago
        And it being charged 10 or 13 dollars a month doesn't make much difference, if it offers a compelling service. Software and service prices seem mostly arbitrary to me anyway. How else Aperture went from $300 to $100, Lightroom the same, BBEdit shed 70% of it's price in one day, etc etc... Same, why was iWork a $99 package and now it's 3 components are $10 each on the Mac App Store?
  - kalleboo 15y ago
    Then have fun signing up for Dropbox on you iPhone using IAP and then only getting to use Dropbox on you iOS devices (no Macs or PCs or the web), since IAPs aren't allowed to give you services outside the app > 11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected In app purchases are simply a wildly inadequate solution for many apps and services, and Apple forcing everyone to use them is absurd and helps nobody.
  - stickfigure 15y ago
    Are you willing to pay 23%[1] more for the convenience of not having to open a window? Because Apple's 30% cut introduces a new cost into the system. Dunno about you, but I'll almost always take the 23% discount and click a few extra buttons. [1] 1 - (1/1.3) is the additional percentage that must be added to a price maintain constant revenue.[2] [2] To be pedantic, Apple also handles payment card processing, which is ~3%. So the difference is really 1-(1.03/1.30) = 20.8%
    - nupark2 15y ago
      > Are you willing to pay 23%[1] more for the convenience of not having to open a window? Yes. If the choice is between UX and cost, I'll almost always pay more. Not everyone will, but the people that don't are less profitable customers, as Apple is demonstrating.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
[I have a zillion snarky type replies that itch to be free, but we'll keep that monster in the box today.] "Way to far" is an interesting characterization. Apple has rules about their playground, they like their rules, they make Apple very profitable. So the question becomes can Google leverage this liability to increase the penetration or market share of Android tablets? Once these tactics hurt Apple in the market they will change. Until then, well its their town and you either have to play by their rules or not play at all.
- DavidAbrams 15y ago
  Way TOO far. T, O, O.
- rogerchucker 15y ago
  I don't think people characterizing this as "too far" are ignorant of that fact that Apple is within its rights to enforce whatever they want to. I think the thread is more about "is Apple being a dick here?"... Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either.
  - ChuckMcM 15y ago
    Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either. I'd love to hear more about that. This is my reasoning on why I think there is an opportunity there: Lets say (patent issues not withstanding), you created an exact clone of the iPad and iOS and sold it at the same price but without the 30% 'apple tax' on purchases. It seems reasonable to assume that if that were the only differentiating feature you would get more developers (they get to keep more of the money) and so it would get more apps, and the platform would outsell Apple's iPad with its constraints. Now granted that is a hell of a hypothetical, but if you can accept the claim that given two otherwise identical products, but one with more developer friendly policies, would allow the developer friendly one to be more successful, then we can talk about at what point the 'value' represented by that can overcome the fact that the product is not an iPad. Does that make sense? The Android tablet ecosystem is currently horrible. Between the device diversity, the user experience diversity, and the release diversity, and the app experience diversity it is a wild and woolly place which has not been able to compete well with iPad. Contrast that to the Kindle Fire which started with Android, locked down a lot of stuff that Google doesn't, and that has gained more traction than any other Android based tablet. To me, that shows a market for a non-iPad but with Apple like quality control and predictability. Depending on Amazon's success, Google might just wake up and fix their world (and of course they might not, it would not be the first time a large organization just didn't 'get' it) But you also claim that nobody can exploit these resentments, and certainly Amazon is going to try and seem to have some modest success in that regard. Love to hear the counter point of view.
gouranga 15y ago
You're on their turf - stop complaining. I wouldn't invest in app development ever, precisely due to these sorts of issues.
- kennywinker 15y ago
  My complaint is not as a developer, but as a user.
jasonlotito 15y ago
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- xanthor 15y ago
  Thanks, Reddit!
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    That's not from Reddit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 It's a poignant message and reminder that this is not the first time this has happened. It's especially important because the OP mentions Apple having "gone too far," as if everything they were doing before was acceptable. As for your belief that this response is merely a quip from an recent migrant from Reddit, might I point out that your comment is, at the very least, far, far worse. I'm confident, however, they you merely don't care, and are at best a troll.
- hyperbovine 15y ago
  Nice one. I couldn't quite put my finger on what this reminded me of, but you nailed it: the Holocaust.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    Ahh, the point is missed by the ignorant. I was not, in any way, comparing this at all to the holocaust. That you would think that says volumes about what your opinion means, however.
    - hyperbovine 15y ago
      Sorry, my mistake. I see now that when quoting a famous poem about Nazi purges, you were actually talking about raising tulips and not the Holocaust. Of course, I was not in any way comparing you to the sort of naive moron who would draw parallels between the murder of 6 million people, and a hiccup encountered while installing an iPhone app. That you would think so says volumes about your self-opinion, though.

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
    In the long run the open market doesn't behave independently rational and doesn't 'win' anything -- it simply is. If Apple wasn't forcing the larger industry to learn how to turn a profit by putting users first, the market would simply saturate the app store with whatever existent concepts are popular today. Remember, prior to iOS, the Mac OS X market was both cry user friendly and very insular. Now, iOS has gone mainstream, but Apple's user-friendly focus hasn't (yet?). Of course, your open market does still exist -- users can choose Android, which thrives on the notion of 'user choice'.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Of course, your open market does still exist -- users can choose Android, which thrives on the notion of 'user choice'. That's one reason why I, as a consumer, chose Android in the first place. When I decided to buy a smartphone, I wanted one that allowed me to block calls and SMS messages completely, without leaving traces in the calls/sms logs. I wanted this because somehow my number ended up on a lot of spam lists and a smartphone should be smart about these things, right? If my email address is protected by spam filters, it should be a no-brainer for my smartphone to do the same for calls and SMS. Imagine my surprise when I found out that such apps are banned from the iTunes App Store and that the only way to get such functionality on iOS was for me to root it and install software through Cydia. And why should I as a consumer go through so many hoops to use such software, when the company (that receives my money in the process) is actively hostile to my use case, a use case which is in no way immoral or unjustified. When it comes to Android, building an app that blocks calls and SMS messages is still hard, as the APIs you have to rely on are private and keep changing, so the results are unpredictable. But upon a search on Google Play, I did find one that works well, installed with a single click. And I didn't have to root my phone. Now that's what openness gets you - user experience is important, but it's all for nothing if the apps allowed don't solve your real problems.
  - rmc 15y ago
    In the long run the open market always wins. The App Store is not an open market, nor is it intended to be an open market.
- davepeck 15y ago
  I think we're actually in agreement about the positive effect of these clauses, at least for some users. I certainly want simplicity and unity in my experience too. We perhaps disagree about the motivations behind the clauses, but without inside knowledge I suppose we'll never know for certain. The piece that perhaps I didn't express clearly enough: there are cases where developers -- even the good ones, who care deeply about doing the right thing for their users -- are boxed in and, no matter how much they would like to play by Apple's rules, are unable to for one reason or another. The result is often worse for users. It's the unintended consequences of the "Kindle Clauses" that I find so interesting; that was what motivated my original blog post.
- wvenable 15y ago
  The problem is Dropbox isn't exclusively an iOS app. So you can sign up for Dropbox directly and they get 100% of the fee or you can sign up through Apple and they get 70%. That might be more than their entire profit. They can't even make iOS purchases more expensive even if perhaps someone like you might pay 30% more for the privilege of a single payment provider. The fact is that Apple is the one that requires apps to open the browser in the first place. It's rule upon rules upon rules. I'm an iOS user and I'm not happy with this aspect of platform, if that means anything.
  - adgar 15y ago
    > So you can sign up for Dropbox directly and they get 100% of the fee or you can sign up through Apple and they get 70%. That might be more than their entire profit. (Emphasis mine) Sounds like it might be time to find a new business plan, then.
    - iloverobots 15y ago
      Many businesses (especially in the technology space) operate on far lower margins than 30%.
      - tomgallard 15y ago
        Really? Are you talking gross or net profit? I would be surprised to find many software products where the gross profit margin would be less than 50%.
        shod 15y ago
        Dropbox isn't a software product; it's a service. What's more, it's a service that needs to be priced to compete with Apple's own iCloud.
        batista 15y ago
        And it being charged 10 or 13 dollars a month doesn't make much difference, if it offers a compelling service. Software and service prices seem mostly arbitrary to me anyway. How else Aperture went from $300 to $100, Lightroom the same, BBEdit shed 70% of it's price in one day, etc etc... Same, why was iWork a $99 package and now it's 3 components are $10 each on the Mac App Store?
- kalleboo 15y ago
  Then have fun signing up for Dropbox on you iPhone using IAP and then only getting to use Dropbox on you iOS devices (no Macs or PCs or the web), since IAPs aren't allowed to give you services outside the app > 11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected In app purchases are simply a wildly inadequate solution for many apps and services, and Apple forcing everyone to use them is absurd and helps nobody.
- stickfigure 15y ago
  Are you willing to pay 23%[1] more for the convenience of not having to open a window? Because Apple's 30% cut introduces a new cost into the system. Dunno about you, but I'll almost always take the 23% discount and click a few extra buttons. [1] 1 - (1/1.3) is the additional percentage that must be added to a price maintain constant revenue.[2] [2] To be pedantic, Apple also handles payment card processing, which is ~3%. So the difference is really 1-(1.03/1.30) = 20.8%
  - nupark2 15y ago
    > Are you willing to pay 23%[1] more for the convenience of not having to open a window? Yes. If the choice is between UX and cost, I'll almost always pay more. Not everyone will, but the people that don't are less profitable customers, as Apple is demonstrating.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

[I have a zillion snarky type replies that itch to be free, but we'll keep that monster in the box today.] "Way to far" is an interesting characterization. Apple has rules about their playground, they like their rules, they make Apple very profitable. So the question becomes can Google leverage this liability to increase the penetration or market share of Android tablets? Once these tactics hurt Apple in the market they will change. Until then, well its their town and you either have to play by their rules or not play at all.

DavidAbrams 15y ago
Way TOO far. T, O, O.
rogerchucker 15y ago
I don't think people characterizing this as "too far" are ignorant of that fact that Apple is within its rights to enforce whatever they want to. I think the thread is more about "is Apple being a dick here?"... Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either. I'd love to hear more about that. This is my reasoning on why I think there is an opportunity there: Lets say (patent issues not withstanding), you created an exact clone of the iPad and iOS and sold it at the same price but without the 30% 'apple tax' on purchases. It seems reasonable to assume that if that were the only differentiating feature you would get more developers (they get to keep more of the money) and so it would get more apps, and the platform would outsell Apple's iPad with its constraints. Now granted that is a hell of a hypothetical, but if you can accept the claim that given two otherwise identical products, but one with more developer friendly policies, would allow the developer friendly one to be more successful, then we can talk about at what point the 'value' represented by that can overcome the fact that the product is not an iPad. Does that make sense? The Android tablet ecosystem is currently horrible. Between the device diversity, the user experience diversity, and the release diversity, and the app experience diversity it is a wild and woolly place which has not been able to compete well with iPad. Contrast that to the Kindle Fire which started with Android, locked down a lot of stuff that Google doesn't, and that has gained more traction than any other Android based tablet. To me, that shows a market for a non-iPad but with Apple like quality control and predictability. Depending on Amazon's success, Google might just wake up and fix their world (and of course they might not, it would not be the first time a large organization just didn't 'get' it) But you also claim that nobody can exploit these resentments, and certainly Amazon is going to try and seem to have some modest success in that regard. Love to hear the counter point of view.

gouranga 15y ago

You're on their turf - stop complaining. I wouldn't invest in app development ever, precisely due to these sorts of issues.

kennywinker 15y ago
My complaint is not as a developer, but as a user.

jasonlotito 15y ago

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

xanthor 15y ago
Thanks, Reddit!
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  That's not from Reddit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 It's a poignant message and reminder that this is not the first time this has happened. It's especially important because the OP mentions Apple having "gone too far," as if everything they were doing before was acceptable. As for your belief that this response is merely a quip from an recent migrant from Reddit, might I point out that your comment is, at the very least, far, far worse. I'm confident, however, they you merely don't care, and are at best a troll.
hyperbovine 15y ago
Nice one. I couldn't quite put my finger on what this reminded me of, but you nailed it: the Holocaust.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Ahh, the point is missed by the ignorant. I was not, in any way, comparing this at all to the holocaust. That you would think that says volumes about what your opinion means, however.
  - hyperbovine 15y ago
    Sorry, my mistake. I see now that when quoting a famous poem about Nazi purges, you were actually talking about raising tulips and not the Holocaust. Of course, I was not in any way comparing you to the sort of naive moron who would draw parallels between the murder of 6 million people, and a hiccup encountered while installing an iPhone app. That you would think so says volumes about your self-opinion, though.