7 ms·

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 adva

by nupark2 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.
- batista 14y ago
  >In the long run the open market always wins. I've never seen an open market in the wild, much less it "always winning". You mean an open market like the "$1 trillion bailout not to collapse the whole economy" open market? Or an open market like "we enforce strict copyright laws to artificially limit each copyrighted product to one maker and it's pricing at his whims"? Or an open market with patents, for the same purpose? Or an open market with frequent cartels, to everything from dairy products to RAM? Last, but not least, an open market where a country with a military advantage has several army units deployed and several wars to secure resources and keep their prices down?
  - philbarr 14y ago
    That is a fantastic rant about the open market. Do you mind if I use it and claim it as my own someday?
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      The rant is generic and uncompelling. I'm sure you can do better.
    - batista 14y ago
      Sure, knock yourself out.
    - kylebrown 14y ago
      as an alternative to a full-blown rant, just remind people that market fundamentalism died in the '08-'09 superbubble implosion. E.g. the new Dallas Fed report about enhancing "market discipline" and restoring "faith in market capitalism."
      - CamperBob 14y ago
        What happened in '08-'09 had as much to do with market capitalism as the Stalinist purges had to do with Marxism.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
davepeck 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
    Many businesses (especially in the technology space) operate on far lower margins than 30%.
    - tomgallard 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.

by nupark2 14y ago

cageface 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.
batista 14y ago
>In the long run the open market always wins. I've never seen an open market in the wild, much less it "always winning". You mean an open market like the "$1 trillion bailout not to collapse the whole economy" open market? Or an open market like "we enforce strict copyright laws to artificially limit each copyrighted product to one maker and it's pricing at his whims"? Or an open market with patents, for the same purpose? Or an open market with frequent cartels, to everything from dairy products to RAM? Last, but not least, an open market where a country with a military advantage has several army units deployed and several wars to secure resources and keep their prices down?
- philbarr 14y ago
  That is a fantastic rant about the open market. Do you mind if I use it and claim it as my own someday?
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    The rant is generic and uncompelling. I'm sure you can do better.
  - batista 14y ago
    Sure, knock yourself out.
  - kylebrown 14y ago
    as an alternative to a full-blown rant, just remind people that market fundamentalism died in the '08-'09 superbubble implosion. E.g. the new Dallas Fed report about enhancing "market discipline" and restoring "faith in market capitalism."
    - CamperBob 14y ago
      What happened in '08-'09 had as much to do with market capitalism as the Stalinist purges had to do with Marxism.
- mkr-hn 14y ago

davepeck 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
  Many businesses (especially in the technology space) operate on far lower margins than 30%.
  - tomgallard 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.