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 516806
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 4

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 2