Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2012 08:29 UTC
Apple Apple is rejecting applications that use Dropbox because if the user of such an application does not have the actual Dropbox application installed, he is presented with a Dropbox login form through Safari, which happens to also show a sign-up link, and after clicking on that sign-up link, users could potentially run into one of the paid Dropbox options. Application developers and users surprised by this may need to read about the frog and the scorpion.
Order by: Score:
Not a restriction in WP7...yet
by Morgan on Wed 2nd May 2012 13:14 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

There is an app in Windows Phone 7 called SurvivalCraft (nice little Minecraft clone) that optionally uses Dropbox to store your game saves. It also launches the web browser to navigate to the Dropbox site and create a Dropbox account if you don't already have one. So far that hasn't been a problem for Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

Good
by scarr on Wed 2nd May 2012 13:48 UTC
scarr
Member since:
2010-11-07

Look, this _sounds_ silly because it is dropbox. Many of us like it and use it.

But, I'm happy Apple is sticking to their guns here. When I download an App, the last thing I want is for that app to redirect me to some web site to buy something else. Remember 5 years ago when we had to install all these add ons to remove popup web dialogs? I'm glad Apple is [mostly] keeping that paradigm out of the App Store.

Edited 2012-05-02 13:49 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Good
by MOS6510 on Wed 2nd May 2012 14:11 UTC in reply to "Good"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's a bit silly, because you can get a free Dropbox account, but also a paid one. It's the possibility of someone opting for a paid account outside of the app store domain that Apple objects to. If you can/need to buy something it has to be done via the app store system, which is "user friendly", but also allows Apple to take some of the money.

While I agree that it's nicer for the user to be able to purchase anything using his Apple ID and the app store instead of getting redirected to a web site, I do think it's a bit overblown in this case as most, if not all, people who end up needing to get a Dropbox account after installing App X will go for the free account.

I mean, it's rather logical to get the free account and see how far that gets you and if it doesn't get you far enough you can always pay up for extra disk space.

Personally I have used Dropbox for free for quite a while and I'm nowhere near my limit.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good
by Molehill on Wed 2nd May 2012 14:14 UTC in reply to "Good"
Molehill Member since:
2012-05-02

You seem to be implying this is about popups and such like. It isn't. It is about Apple stopping apps having an external mechanism to pay for something. Apple won't get a percentage of the payment if they allowed this.

In this particular case they are being overly pedantic and one cynically feels this is to promote iCloud over dropbox. Surely a web browser should be banned for this rule as it allows external mechanisms to buy things.

Edited 2012-05-02 14:15 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Good
by bitwelder on Wed 2nd May 2012 14:29 UTC in reply to "Good"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Reading the linked forum thread it seems a little suspicious, as other apps with similar potential policy violation have been approved (using Facebook Connect).
Thou shalt not have other cloud service than iCloud?

Also, a developer reports that user has to deviate quite much from the intuitive flow of the login process to get to the 'purchase proposal'. If a user gets so easily sidetracked (you want only to login and you end up buying storage space?) no matter how draconian is the policy, she'll find a way to get lost anyway :-D

Reply Score: 5

RE: Good
by Alfman on Wed 2nd May 2012 17:21 UTC in reply to "Good"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

osnews has paid accounts, an osnews app linking to the website would have to be rejected too. We couldn't risk having the scam artists behind osnews make a sale outside the sacred ibazaar.

Computing sure has gone downhill hasn't it? Mobile computing has much potential, it's too bad consumers are being roped into closed devices. We are at the forefront of the computing dark ages.

Reply Score: 4

I hate the inconsistency
by darknexus on Wed 2nd May 2012 17:03 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I don't have a problem, in principal, with Apple having and enforcing app store guidelines. It's their right as a business to do as they will with their product, just as it is your right to use someone else's product if you disagree with them. But, the trouble comes when guidelines are not applied consistently. There are a crap load of apps in the app store already that use Dropbox. It seems a bit late to start this ridiculousness now. I really think Apple needs to get some sense slapped into them as far as what they actually need to be worrying about and, if they want people using iCloud, they need to make iCloud a better service. For storing and retrieving files in an intuitive way, iCloud doesn't even come close to matching Dropbox. What's next? Banning the Amazon mobile app, or other retailers? Of course not, because that might actually piss off enough users (and more importantly the big corporates) enough for them to do something about it. Either allow external services or do not, Apple. Your inconsistencies are getting ridiculous and hard to follow.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I hate the inconsistency
by Alfman on Wed 2nd May 2012 17:38 UTC in reply to "I hate the inconsistency"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

darknexus,

"I don't have a problem, in principal, with Apple having and enforcing app store guidelines. It's their right as a business to do as they will with their product, just as it is your right to use someone else's product if you disagree with them."

I agree with you, that apple should be able to do what they want within their stores. However the real issue at stake is that customers aren't being permitted to choose alternative stores on devices they own, they are forced to use the bundled moderated one. It should be our right as consumers to select a different store, and just as MS was told it could not bundle IE with windows, I'm hopeful that some day apple will have to unbundle the apple app store from ios, (and the windows app store from windows 8, etc).

Otherwise, we'll forever be dependent upon corporations to decide and control what we can do, and they'll do whatever they can to make it technologically & economically unviable for us to avoid them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I hate the inconsistency
by darknexus on Wed 2nd May 2012 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate the inconsistency"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I agree with you, that apple should be able to do what they want within their stores. However the real issue at stake is that customers aren't being permitted to choose alternative stores on devices they own, they are forced to use the bundled moderated one. It should be our right as consumers to select a different store, and just as MS was told it could not bundle IE with windows, I'm hopeful that some day apple will have to unbundle the apple app store from ios, (and the windows app store from windows 8, etc).


Yes, because legislating these things just works so very well. You can't legislate these problems away. If you want Apple to get a kick in the ass, then stop using their products and convince everyone you know to convince everyone they know to do the same. It's not a corporate problem in this case, it's a consumer mentality problem. If you want to be able to use alternate stores, then you should use Android or another product that will let you do that. You won't solve this by government or legal force, because you're then trading one form of dependence for another.

Otherwise, we'll forever be dependent upon corporations to decide and control what we can do, and they'll do whatever they can to make it technologically & economically unviable for us to avoid them.


As opposed to what? Government control? Either form of control is equally bad in my opinion, but I'm beginning to believe it will take a major shift in the way the majority think before we are free from this. People will follow anything, for the most part, if they believe it will make them safer. In a way, this is the cost we will pay for computers becoming appliances. We need to stop trying to treat the symptoms and work on the real problem instead and, that problem in a nutshell, is that the masses don't care if they are free or not so long as they can keep up with whatever the latest social networking fad happens to be. I don't like it. You obviously don't like it. However, that doesn't change the reality as it currently is, and you can't use legal force to change human thought processes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I hate the inconsistency
by Alfman on Thu 3rd May 2012 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hate the inconsistency"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

darknexus,

"Yes, because legislating these things just works so very well...."

There are indeed problems.. Yet there is no alternative, we desperately need a counterbalancing force to keep all-powerful corporations from overtaking and abusing society. We're already witnessing the evils caused by corporatization of the US. Small businesses are dying in favor of multinational conglomerates. Corporate laissez fair It has not resulted in free markets, but rather markets where a few players dominate in the form of an oligopoly leaving consumers with extremely limited choices. Worse still, they get away with anti-competitive tactics including those we're discussing here to strengthen their positions. Opportunities are drying up for those trying to competing on a level playing field based on merit.

I just don't want the future of computing to be one which is controlled by a handful of all powerful corporations. I don't want to be dependent upon google or apple or microsoft to reach customers. Conversely I don't want potential customers to be dependent upon them to reach me. I don't want a huge chunk of my future income to pay into corporate funds which are ultimately used to repress competitiveness and choice in my industry.

Prohibiting product bundling is a small step towards increasing competition, but it is a step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I hate the inconsistency
by WorknMan on Wed 2nd May 2012 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate the inconsistency"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I agree with you, that apple should be able to do what they want within their stores. However the real issue at stake is that customers aren't being permitted to choose alternative stores on devices they own, they are forced to use the bundled moderated one.


Well, you are not exactly forced; you can always jailbreak and use Cydia. Or you can buy an Android device instead.

It should be our right as consumers to select a different store, and just as MS was told it could not bundle IE with windows, I'm hopeful that some day apple will have to unbundle the apple app store from ios, (and the windows app store from windows 8, etc).


Apple does not have a monopoly on tablets, and certainly not on phones. There is absolutely no reason for the government to get involved. It is only when the government interferes that we get shit like the DMCA and software patents. The further the government stays away from these affairs, the better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I hate the inconsistency
by Alfman on Thu 3rd May 2012 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I hate the inconsistency"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"Apple does not have a monopoly on tablets, and certainly not on phones."

Personally I would like to see a law that explicitly entitles users to access 3rd party app stores from any hardware that has a built in app store. This would not be specific to apple.


"It is only when the government interferes that we get shit like the DMCA and software patents. The further the government stays away from these affairs, the better."

I'd argue that crap came about because of corporate ties to government. If we presume that government must be controlled by corporate interests, then I concede that we are better off with less intervention. In a government that stands for the people however, it has a duty to intervene on abusive market practices and encourage healthy competition.

Edited 2012-05-03 01:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I hate the inconsistency
by WorknMan on Thu 3rd May 2012 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hate the inconsistency"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Personally I would like to see a law that explicitly entitles users to access 3rd party app stores from any hardware that has a built in app store. This would not be specific to apple.


In that case, where do you draw the line? That would essentially force game consoles, set-top boxes, and anything else that gives you access to paid content to allow anybody and their grandmother to set up shop on the device. That means if I wanted to set up my own online gaming store, I could force Microsoft to open up the 360 and allow me to install my own store on their console. And of course, people are going to call them for support if my app store has bugs and causes the console to crash.

Instead of forcing these asinine requirements on hardware vendors, why not just let 'em do whatever the hell they want, and you choose to either buy the product or not. Or would you prefer living in a government-run nanny state? Personally, I would rather make these decisions for myself, rather than having governments make them for me. Do away with the DMCA, and let people find their own solutions to these closed systems. Hell, hacking ebook readers and phones (and I assume tablets by extension) is even legal right now (in the US).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I hate the inconsistency
by Alfman on Thu 3rd May 2012 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hate the inconsistency"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"And of course, people are going to call them for support if my app store has bugs and causes the console to crash."

Well that was a straw man, of course I don't expect a manufacturer to support third party code, only to permit consumers to run it and perhaps include a way to return the firmware to default (which btw they already do anyways to reset their own buggy firmware).


"Instead of forcing these asinine requirements on hardware vendors, why not just let 'em do whatever the hell they want, and you choose to either buy the product or not."

If we leave it up to corporations to collectively determine which rights we have as consumers, we'll eventually end up with a couple vendors telling us everything we can and cannot do with the hardware we've bought. This trend is eerily recognizable even today, but it's only a foreshadow of what closed computing has for us on the horizon.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I hate the inconsistency
by darknexus on Thu 3rd May 2012 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hate the inconsistency"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

In a government that stands for the people


A government always stands for the peopleā€¦ the people with the most power. Why? Because those with power can give the politicians what they want. Do you not understand that we, as a species, are not altruistic? Given the choice to serve others or serve oneself, most people will always choose to serve themselves. They do not have your interests at heart. They will never have your interests at heart. The sooner you understand basic human psychology, the better off you will be when looking at how governments and corporations operate, and why such links between them are inevitable in the end. You're still looking at the symptoms and not the underlying cause.

Edited 2012-05-03 07:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

software sales on iOS, for their stock price is based in large part on that revenue stream.

Reply Score: 2

Thats what you get...
by MatsSvensson on Thu 3rd May 2012 04:53 UTC
MatsSvensson
Member since:
2010-07-09

...for buying an iTunes-pad.

Reply Score: 1