iOS Apps with Dropbox Integration Running Afoul of Apple's App Store Rules

[JohnDoe98]

99$ is to submit apps to the App store. I thought someone discussing this would have an actual grasp of policies in place.

Don't get all worked up. I'm here to have a conversation and hopefully to learn a thing or two. From the beginning I've made it clear I'm trying to understand the complaints being made. I fail to see what's wrong with asking some questions to those of you dissatisfied with Apple.

How are current rules keeping developers confident their apps will get approved ? Hint : They aren't.

Agreed, but it could be much worse.

It's simple. Don't want a developer to abuse the infrastructure ? Don't allow "locked" content. Apple goes to the trouble of visiting websites that apps open to see if there's any "upgrade" or "buy" links there, so don't tell me this complicates the process, it's already complicated. You'll keep serving up your example, I'll keep answering the same.

So when I buy an additional codec in my VOIP app, through the subscription model, is that "locked" content? I think so. I also think it is reasonable for the developer to make the App's initial cost cheaper since not everyone needs that extra feature. I simply don't see how you can cut out locked content, for in too many instances it is legitimate for developers to make use of these features. You don't want to have 50 versions of every App.

Apple imposing themselves as the only payment processor allowed in apps on iOS is greedy on their part, especially considering the cut they are asking for the privilege (30% is nowhere near industry standards for payment processing).

I've already conceded this point. However, I don't see an alternative. You proposed to ban locked content doesn't strike me as sensible, and without that I also fail to see how a developer wouldn't just convert everything into that format.

Perhaps I'm too slow witted, but hopefully you will show a little more patience and help guide me through this mess.

----------

You have an application you charge a monthly subscription for that relies on a servers completely divorced from anything Apple...beyond using the App Store to distribute it. Well, if you wanted to charge for the app itself, Apple should get their 30% cut. Beyond that initial charge? You're supporting your own server farm, your own employees, your own office Casual Fridays. Apple has nothing to do with supporting your business. They shouldn't get a dime of your subscription fees.

It's quite simply as simple as that.

Right and they won't, so long as you sell the subscriptions outside of the App Store. You want it inside? You have to pay, and I've tried to explain why I think that might be.

 

[Lennholm]

Try reading my post again, along with the quote from your post.

You're saying you should be able to launch your own music store app and have Apple distribute and promote the app on the app store without them getting paid whilst you compete directly with their own music store.

Which is just plain crazy.

They ARE getting paid for doing that; $99 / year + 30% of whatever the app itself costs in the store.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Wait, you're mistaken on this. IAS/IAP is an API provided through Storekit. Dropbox is saying "We don't want to use your API, we have our own". Apple is not allowing this.

No one wants to use IAS/IAP without paying Apple. That's the point, Apple is not allowing anyone to implement their own subscription/purchasing service. They are forcing people towards IAS/IAP.

Dropbox can do it on their website and only allow the Apps to login to that subscription in the iOS environment. The point at issue is Apple is not allowing those APIs for subscriptions and in-app purchases within apps on the iOS platform. So what exactly am I not getting?

Are you a developer ? Have you read the documentation on Storekit ? Do you understand what it does and doesn't do ?

If not, you have no place holding this conversation, you don't even understand what is being discussed...

Oh please. Save your elitism for someone else. If I'm mistaken on something, point it out and I'll thank you for it. Otherwise, be gone with such nonsense. This is a public forum for interested parties to converse.

 

[KnightWRX]

Don't get all worked up. I'm here to have a conversation and hopefully to learn a thing or two. From the beginning I've made it clear I'm trying to understand the complaints being made. I fail to see what's wrong with asking some questions to those of you dissatisfied with Apple.

I've not seen where you've made it clear. Not saying you haven't, just saying I didn't see it. With the way you're expressing your views and telling others what is and isn't acceptable, I was under the impression you actually knew what you were talking about.

Agreed, but it could be much worse.

It could be better too. This IAS/IAP business isn't helping. Making it optional would.

So when I buy an additional codec in my VOIP app, through the subscription model, is that "locked" content? I think so. I also think it is reasonable for the developer to make the App's initial cost cheaper since not everyone needs that extra feature. I simply don't see how you can cut out locked content, for in too many instances it is legitimate for developers to make use of these features. You don't want to have 50 versions of every App.

Do you have an example of an app on the app store that sells "codecs" ? I frankly find the idea appalling, especially for a VOIP application. Why limit the codecs it supports and thus what other VOIP apps in can interact with ?

Anyhow, yes, that would be locked content and I would hope would be refused by Apple.

We're getting pretty far from the actual discussion though.

I've already conceded this point. However, I don't see an alternative. You proposed to ban locked content doesn't strike me as sensible, and without that I also fail to see how a developer wouldn't just convert everything into that format.

Well considering IAP was introduced around iOS 3, made mandatory for purchases around iOS 4 and that there wasn't a proliferation of your scenario prior to that with tons of locked content, one can conclude sheer paranoia.

Or greed.

I choose greed on Apple's part, especially in light of their astronomical rate for payment processing.

Right and they won't, so long as you sell the subscriptions outside of the App Store. You want it inside? You have to pay, and I've tried to explain why I think that might be.

Subscriptions are not served by the app store, that is what I'm trying to explain for the last 5 pages. Only the payment thereof.

Heck, read the documentation, it's made quite clear :

http://developer.apple.com/library/...n.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267-CH1-SW1

Important In-App Purchase only collects payment. You must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in features or downloading content from your own servers.

 

[polaris20]

Good. Developers should be implementing iCloud into their apps, not getting stuck in the past.

I don't use Dropbox for the same purpose as iCloud; they're not really like for like in terms of feature parity. I like iCloud for Photostream, backups from iOS, and maybe bookmarks (though I use XMarks too for that), but I use Dropbox for a ton of stuff, on Linux, Windows, Mac, and iOS. There's just no current replacement for that broad functionality, due to Dropbox's SDK.

 

[KnightWRX]

Dropbox can do it on their website and only allow the Apps to login to that subscription in the iOS environment. The point at issue is Apple is not allowing those APIs for subscriptions and in-app purchases within apps on the iOS platform. So what exactly am I not getting?

Dropbox can't do it on their website, that's the whole point. Dropbox was doing it on their website, but because they also needed to direct users to the website to allow apps to use the service, Apple is pulling the plug.

That's the whole point.

Oh please. Save your elitism for someone else. If I'm mistaken on something, point it out and I'll thank you for it. Otherwise, be gone with such nonsense. This is a public forum for interested parties to converse.

Trying to have an educated debate about a topic with people that don't know of the actual workings behind the subject is kind of hard. It places a huge burden of education on our side of the debate, while you get to make up scenarios that may or may not even be supported by reality.

It really makes discussing this subject hard for us. If you are interested in defending Apple's position, you should know and understand Apple's position first. That's not elitism, that's just common sense.

----------

Try reading my post again, along with the quote from your post.

You're saying you should be able to launch your own music store app and have Apple distribute and promote the app on the app store without them getting paid whilst you compete directly with their own music store.

Which is just plain crazy.

Apple does not promote applications unless you're already very popular or a very big developer (not everyone is an Epic games or Electronic Arts to get promotion time during keynotes). Apple gets paid for distributing your app, ie, 30% of the app's cost + 99$/year.

What's crazy about that ? That's what Apple set as guidelines when they opened the app store.

 

[babyj]

Apple gets paid for distributing your app, ie, 30% of the app's cost + 99$/year.

What's crazy about that ? That's what Apple set as guidelines when they opened the app store.

Firstly, the $99 does not cover the distribution costs Apple incur for free apps.

Secondly, we're back to my original point about where do you draw the line. What you're suggesting would allow everyone to offer free apps and then sell the real functionality or content via an in app purchase that doesn't go through Apple. So Apple are stuck with the $99's (which won't cover their costs), so they end up closing the iTunes store and then everyone loses.

Apple have built up a retail business with over 200 million customers, thinking you're going to get access to them for just $99 a year isn't realistic. If what Apple have created wasn't so special and potentially lucrative for others, then no one would be getting worked up about it.

Developers forget just how lucky they are to have the iTunes Store and only get charged 30% of the retail price. Selling a boxed product via retail channels, you'd lose 50% to the distributor and retailer plus have your manufacturing costs on top. The 30% is a far, far better deal than what was there before.

 

[Renzatic]

Right and they won't, so long as you sell the subscriptions outside of the App Store. You want it inside? You have to pay, and I've tried to explain why I think that might be.

That's where the problem lies. By default, apps are required to go through the App Store for any transactions. It's a middleman setup. As far as I know, an app can't make any transactions outside of the iOS environment. This isn't a problem in and of itself. It's Apple's attempt to keep things more secure and organized. It only becomes a problem because Apple is asking for a HUGE amount of money for the privilege of using it.

I don't think people would complain so much if the terms were more reasonable. Maybe 1% off all subscription fees or something similar. As is, they're basically forcing people to run through their App Store middle man, then saying "hey, you have to pay us a ton of money or lol". That's flat out ridiculous, and not justifiable in the least.

The only option developers had was to strip the storefronts from their apps completely, and enact all transactions through the web. This means that unless these companies are willing to be basically extorted, you yourself have to jump through a ton of unnecessary hoops to get the files bought beyond the Apple umbrella into your apps.

But Apple doesn't want you jumping through these hoops. They're basically saying "look, it's alright if they've already got a subscription to your service elsewhere, but if they don't, you can't advertise the fact that they can go outside the App Store within the app itself. You have to stay completely mum about the subject, or give us 30% of your subscription fees".

Apple's storefronts, on the other hand, don't have this problem. They can advertise extra features all the want, and don't have to pay a third party to sell files and services off their own servers.

It's an unfair setup.

 

[JohnDoe98]

I've not seen where you've made it clear. Not saying you haven't, just saying I didn't see it. With the way you're expressing your views and telling others what is and isn't acceptable, I was under the impression you actually knew what you were talking about.

I'm asking questions and raising analogies since the reasoning being presented strikes me as problematic. I'm not saying the criticisms are wrong or ill-founded, I just haven't seen a convincing case made yet. Hence, my questions/analogies. If I've raised my concerns in a confrontational tone, that was not my intention. I guess I can try to be less direct if you like it better.

Do you have an example of an app on the app store that sells "codecs" ? I frankly find the idea appalling, especially for a VOIP application. Why limit the codecs it supports and thus what other VOIP apps in can interact with ?

Sure, Groundwire does it. Talkatone does it, and I'm sure many other instances do too, but I'm pretty sure these two examples will suffice.

Anyhow, yes, that would be locked content and I would hope would be refused by Apple.

We're getting pretty far from the actual discussion though.

Well, if we are that isn't obvious to me, but that may be, as you will likely suggest, because I'm not supposed to be participating in this discussion. What does seem fairly clear to me is that these types of locked content are currently supported, and do have the potential to undermine the 30% cut Apple is currently getting if the IAS and IAP price changes.

Well considering IAP was introduced around iOS 3, made mandatory for purchases around iOS 4 and that there wasn't a proliferation of your scenario prior to that with tons of locked content, one can conclude sheer paranoia.

Or greed.

I choose greed on Apple's part, especially in light of their astronomical rate for payment processing.

Are those the only two possibilities? Wouldn't one suspect that as the platform becomes more popular, as cloud services proliferate, etc., these kinds of issues will only multiply?

 

[KnightWRX]

Firstly, the $99 does not cover the distribution costs Apple incur for free apps.

What does then ? I pay Apple 99$/year, they distribute my free app. That's what was agreed upon by both parties. I fail to see what you're getting at here. 99$/year does cover distribution of your free application and its updates as you submit them to Apple for approval.

Secondly, we're back to my original point about where do you draw the line. What you're suggesting would allow everyone to offer free apps and then sell the real functionality or content via an in app purchase that doesn't go through Apple. So Apple are stuck with the $99's (which won't cover their costs), so they end up closing the iTunes store and then everyone loses.

Which there are ways around without forcing themselves as the only payment processor, at about 10 times the cost of the industry standard for payment processing.

You ignoring those ways and ignoring the fact Apple is charging gouging rates is not changing that.

Apple have built up a retail business with over 200 million customers, thinking you're going to get access to them for just $99 a year isn't realistic.

And you didn't read my post waaaaay back on page 2. Apple got 200 million customers because they had all these guys who paid 99$ a year to make apps for the app store.

"There's an app for that" sold many iOS devices. No apps, no sales. Apple didn't conjure up 200 million users out of the ether.

 

[babyj]

I choose greed on Apple's part, especially in light of their astronomical rate for payment processing.

Apple are not a payment processor, they are a retailer.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Dropbox can't do it on their website, that's the whole point. Dropbox was doing it on their website, but because they also needed to direct users to the website to allow apps to use the service, Apple is pulling the plug.

That's the whole point.

That's the whole point you are neglecting. The issue isn't that Dropbox did it on their site, the issue is that Apps were giving links to the subscriptions on the respective sites. You can have the App login to the subscription and use the service. What you can't do is have the App gives links to sign-up for the subscription within the App. Apple isn't categorically rejecting Apps that rely on subscriptions to function. Apple is categorically rejecting Apps providing links to the necessary subscriptions.

Trying to have an educated debate about a topic with people that don't know of the actual workings behind the subject is kind of hard. It places a huge burden of education on our side of the debate, while you get to make up scenarios that may or may not even be supported by reality.

Perhaps. But then why discuss these issues on public forums if that's your position? Take it to a private venue if you feel the educational demand is too great.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple are not a payment processor, they are a retailer.

In this situation, they're a payment processor. Someone else is selling the product, but for them to sell said product on iOS, Apple forces processing the payment through their own storefront

 

[babyj]

What does then ? I pay Apple 99$/year, they distribute my free app. That's what was agreed upon by both parties. I fail to see what you're getting at here. 99$/year does cover distribution of your free application and its updates as you submit them to Apple for approval.

Free app distribution is subsidised from the profit on paid for apps.

Which there are ways around without forcing themselves as the only payment processor, at about 10 times the cost of the industry standard for payment processing. You ignoring those ways and ignoring the fact Apple is charging gouging rates is not changing that.

The ways around it would be complicated and the rule book would be massive. Apple like to keep things simple and their rules are simple.

Again, view Apple correctly as a retailer rather than a payment processor and the 30% is not gouging nor unreasonable. There is a hint in it being called the iTunes Store rather than iTunes Merchant Services.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple are not a payment processor, they are a retailer.

Not in the context we're discussing. Again, from the documentation :

http://developer.apple.com/library/.../StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html

Important In-App Purchase only collects payment.

Don't know how it can be made clearer to you.

 

[babyj]

In this situation, they're a payment processor. Someone else is selling the product, but for them to sell said product on iOS, Apple forces processing the payment through their own storefront

You've just proved my point, you have to buy / sell the product through the Apple storefront. i.e. Store. i.e Shop. i.e. They are a retailer not a payment processor.

 

[KnightWRX]

That's the whole point you are neglecting. The issue isn't that Dropbox did it on their site, the issue is that Apps were giving links to the subscriptions on the respective sites. You can have the App login to the subscription and use the service. What you can't do is have the App gives links to sign-up for the subscription within the App. Apple isn't categorically rejecting Apps that rely on subscriptions to function. Apple is categorically rejecting Apps providing links to the necessary subscriptions.

Nope, you completely misunderstood the situation. The app wasn't offering services/subscription. The app was essentially telling the user "I'm compatible with Dropbox, if you have an account, press here to sign in and allow me to store content there". Then when the user pressed to access the sign-in page, since it was on Dropbox's websites, he also had links to subscription/service purchasing.

This was completely outside the app.

Again, you're missing the whole point and not understanding the issue, just like you don't understand the issues with IAP/IAS or even understand the policies.

Seriously, go out and read, learn and come back to defend Apple's position once you actually know what it is. This isn't being elitist, it's me being tired of having to both educate you on the issue and then reply to your arguments. Your arguments aren't founded in facts since you don't know the facts. This places a heavier burden on me.

I'm done replying to you until you've learned how this actually works.

----------

You've just proved my point, you have to buy / sell the product through the Apple storefront. i.e. Store. i.e Shop. i.e. They are a retailer not a payment processor.

No, since again, from the documentation :

Important In-App Purchase only collects payment. You must provide any additional functionality, including unlocking built-in features or downloading content from your own servers.

Don't know how this can be made clearer to you. Are you even reading the documentation ?

 

[JohnDoe98]

That's where the problem lies. By default, apps are required to go through the App Store for any transactions. It's a middleman setup. As far as I know, an app can't make any transactions outside of the iOS environment. This isn't a problem in and of itself. It's Apple's attempt to keep things more secure and organized. It only becomes a problem because Apple is asking for a HUGE amount of money for the privilege of using it.

That's false. Amazon can sell you books on their website and then let you log into their servers and download those books from within Apps. What Amazon cannot do is sell you their books within their Apps on iOS. Dropbox can sell you a 100gb package on their website and let you login to their servers through their iOS app. What dropbox cannot do is sell you the 100gb package within the iOS app. And also, what cannot be done is you cannot advertise the subscriptions/sales in the App and link to the website to process the payments.

I don't think people would complain so much if the terms were more reasonable. Maybe 1% off all subscription fees or something similar. As is, they're basically forcing people to run through their App Store middle man, then saying "hey, you have to pay us a ton of money or lol". That's flat out ridiculous, and not justifiable in the least.

That's great in theory, but how do you propose to prevent people gaming the system. KnightWRX's solution was to block all locked content. Do you agree with that proposal?

The only option developers had was to strip the storefronts from their apps completely, and enact all transactions through the web. This means that unless these companies are willing to be basically extorted, you yourself have to jump through a ton of unnecessary hoops to get the files bought beyond the Apple umbrella into your apps.

That's hardly extortion. They are allowed to play within the iOS environment if they want. They just can't advertise and sell within it unless they give Apple a cut.

But Apple doesn't want you jumping through these hoops. They're basically saying "look, it's alright if they've already got a subscription to your service elsewhere, but if they don't, you can't advertise the fact that they can go outside the App Store within the app itself. You have to stay completely mum about the subject, or give us 30% of your subscription fees".

Right. Imagine if Apple had advertisements for Bestbuy's competitors on their ipads within the Bestbuy store where the Apple products were on display. Don't you think Bestbuy would be ticked off?

 

[KnightWRX]

Free app distribution is subsidised from the profit on paid for apps.

You're saying Apple opened the App Store without a sustainable model ? Doesn't sound like Apple to me. Why do you hate on Apple like that ?

The ways around it would be complicated and the rule book would be massive. Apple like to keep things simple and their rules are simple.

Except the rules for the App store are complicated. You stating otherwise shows how much you don't know about the policies surrounding writing, releasing and sell applications for iOS.

 

[Renzatic]

You've just proved my point, you have to buy / sell the product through the Apple storefront. i.e. Store. i.e Shop. i.e. They are a retailer not a payment processor.

Okay, I'll use an analogy here, and try to talk slowly.

Imagine a mall. Imagine this mall is actually owned by one big store, but has a ton of other, smaller stores within it. These smaller stores have their own distribution chain, pay their own employees, and have their own janitors. The big store that owns the mall though, thinks that all these little stores should pay for the right to work within their building. They pay rent and they pay utilities, that's understandable. But for every sale these little stores make, this big store requires transactions through their registers at the front of the mall, takes 30% of the profits, then distributes the rest to the smaller stores in the building.

If people don't like the terms, they can go elsewhere. But guess what? This mall is pretty popular. So these little stores are opening up little kiosks around the parking lot to sell their stuff, and get out from under the thumb of the big mall owning store.

In this situation, the big mall owning store isn't just a store, but also a payment processor for the smaller ones. The only way the smaller stores can get around it is by cheating the draconian terms of the owners.

Why should the big mall owning store get 30% of the profits? They don't do anything to support the supply chain. They don't produce the goods. They don't pay their employees. These stores are already paying rent and utilities. Anything more is just greedy.

 

[KnightWRX]

Okay, I'll use an analogy here, and try to talk slowly.

Analogies don't work, especially real world analogies to digital goods. On both sides.

If I owned a mall and you tried to setup a kiosk in my parking lot, I'd have police escort you off the premise.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Nope, you completely misunderstood the situation. The app wasn't offering services/subscription.

I didn't say that it was. I said it was providing links to subscriptions or purchases, and I said providing such links is disallowed. Had it provided subscriptions or purchases in app that also would have been rejected. Seems like you did not read what I said attentively enough. Nice straw man.

The app was essentially telling the user "I'm compatible with Dropbox, if you have an account, press here to sign in and allow me to store content there". Then when the user pressed to access the sign-in page, since it was on Dropbox's websites, he also had links to subscription/service purchasing.

This was completely outside the app.

So by your own admission then the the App was providing links to a webpage that offered subscription and purchasing services, which I said was not allowed according to Apple and to which you claimed I was "completely mistaken" about. To make matters worse, according to the report we are responding to in this thread:

That functionality runs afoul of Apple's review guidelines, which do not allow signups for paid services other than those available through Apple's In App Purchase to be accessible directly from the app. [...]

As noted by MacStories, the Rule 11.13 Apple is citing in rejecting these application is not new, but developers running the Dropbox SDK version 1.2.1 which offered a way for users to get to paid signup pages were just recently beginning to experience issues with App Store review. As cited in one rejection notice sent to a developer:
Quote:
11.13

We found that your app provides access to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions to be used in the app, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.

Notice the language used by Apple themselves. "Your app provides access to external mechanisms for purchases or subscriptions used in the app". That is exactly what I said was the issue and which you've claimed I'm mistaken about. For someone going around telling others to know what they are talking about, I find it ironic that it turns out on the basis of what you said in post 242 you don't know what you are talking about. But perhaps you understand Apple's policies, rules, etc. better than they do themselves, and better than they do when they cite those rules as the reasons for rejecting Apps. Well done sir.

 

[Renzatic]

That's false. Amazon can sell you books on their website and then let you log into their servers and download those books from within Apps. What Amazon cannot do is sell you their books within their Apps on iOS. Dropbox can sell you a 100gb package on their website and let you login to their servers through their iOS app. What dropbox cannot do is sell you the 100gb package within the iOS app. And also, what cannot be done is you cannot advertise the subscriptions/sales in the App and link to the website to process the payments.

And that's fair to you? Is it easy to use?

That's great in theory, but how do you propose to prevent people gaming the system. KnightWRX's solution was to block all locked content. Do you agree with that proposal?

It's a system that can be gamed just so Apple can say they're gaming the system, then charging an exorbitant amount in retaliation.

You want to put your service on iOS? Okay. Want to sell subscriptions to your service? Good deal. You'll have to use our system we've built the entire OS around, but that's okay. Oh wait, we want more money. You has to pay us far more than necessary to use the system we've built the entire OS around. If you don't, you can do things the unnecessarily difficult way.

That's hardly extortion. They are allowed to play within the iOS environment if they want. They just can't advertise and sell within it unless they give Apple a cut.

Yeah, by paying a healthy chunk of your profits in the process. There's fair, and then there's the current App Store situation.

Right. Imagine if Apple had advertisements for Bestbuy's competitors on their ipads within the Bestbuy store where the Apple products were on display. Don't you think Bestbuy would be ticked off?

If Apple wants to maintain a retail chain built directly into the OS, they'll have to remain neutral. They start playing favorites with their own products, and they'll get hit with the antitrust axe just like MS did back in the late 90's.

Analogies don't work, especially real world analogies to digital goods. On both sides.

If I owned a mall and you tried to setup a kiosk in my parking lot, I'd have police escort you off the premise.

Well, you don't have to take things 100% literally here.

Plus Apple could always nix a particularly troublesome app from the App Store if the developers start raising too much of a stink, and try to work around the terms and conditions. That's somewhat like getting the police to escort you off the parking lot in digital terms.

 

[babyj]

Imagine a mall. Imagine this mall is actually owned by one big store, but has a ton of other, smaller stores within it. These smaller stores have their own distribution chain, pay their own employees, and have their own janitors. The big store that owns the mall though, thinks that all these little stores should pay for the right to work within their building. They pay rent and they pay utilities, that's understandable. But for every sale these little stores make, this big store requires transactions through their registers at the front of the mall, takes 30% of the profits, then distributes the rest to the smaller stores in the building.

Actually, I don't have to imagine any of that as you've just described one of the business models that Westfields use (or at least did use) for the carts in their malls. Not sure of the exact % but I believe it was pretty steep in some cases, upwards of 20% wouldn't surprise me.


And to both you and KnightWRX, how about you act like adults and avoid name calling and talking down to people. I'm treating you and your views with respect, is it asking too much for you to do the same?

 

[KnightWRX]

And to both you and KnightWRX, how about you act like adults and avoid name calling and talking down to people. I'm treating you and your views with respect, is it asking too much for you to do the same?

I haven't named called anyone. I've pointed out that some of you don't know about the rules, issues, and policies in place and thus have no basis on which to base discussion.

I'll stick to that. I'm out, waste of time, all as been said and I feel I'm just repeating myself at this point.