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.
Thread beginning with comment 516797
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I hate the inconsistency
by darknexus on Wed 2nd May 2012 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: I hate the inconsistency"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:


"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 Parent Score: 3