Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Mr. Gates said:
Angry Birds ?
Thats 1 game.

Amazon was around WAY longer than iOS .

Having the App on iOS makes iOS more valuable. Even if greedy Apple doesn't get their grubby paws on 30% of money that isn't theirs.

Mobsters used to do this in poor neighborhoods, hustle people out of a percentage of their earnings or they would run them out of town.

You seriosly want to try and say with a strait face that if I purchase a TV via the Amazon APP for $10,000 ......APPLE GETS $3,000 of the sale !?!?!!!

You must me kidding me .
Click to expand...

Book publishers were around WAY longer than Amazon. Having Penguin Books and Random House on Amazon makes Amazon more valuable. Even if Amazon doesn't get their grubby paws on a FLAT monthly/per item fee PLUS "other selling fees" (aka: money that isn't theirs, by your definition).

30% is not ideal for a $10,000 TV, but then again, I don't think anyone expects you to buy that via an app. 30% is better for small item purchases like apps and subscriptions.
 
I'm not entirely sure why I was downvoted from my previous post. The apps aren't being rejected because of some DropBox vs. iCloud evil Apple scheme. They're being rejected because, whether you agree with it or not, the DropBox SDK provides a link for users to purchase more space. This link bypasses in-app purchasing, which is against a clearly stated, albeit controversial, rule of the App Store.

Replace "DropBox SDK" in this story with any other company name and the rule would still apply.
 
Josheh said:
That's pretty crappy advertising. I usually have to go to outside websites to find hidden gems. It only effectively advertises the top selling applications.

There's been countless times I've been searching for a certain kind of application and it's just a pain when searching through the App store. I usually end up at google.
Click to expand...

True, but I've also found several great programs using the in-app finder.

And lets be honest. Half of those "top 100 apps to have" on Google suck.
 
the more I read, the more I believe this is about the subscription offered on dropbox.com mobile site, and on the singup integration with apps....it is not about the actual integration, it is just the way they went out offering upgrades was skirting Apples rules, and can be got around quickly....

If this is about integration, then I am a sad
 
ristlin said:
Book publishers were around WAY longer than Amazon. Having Penguin Books and Random House on Amazon makes Amazon more valuable. Even if Amazon doesn't get their grubby paws on a FLAT monthly/per item fee PLUS "other selling fees" (aka: money that isn't theirs, by your definition).

30% is not ideal for a $10,000 TV, but then again, I don't think anyone expects you to buy that via an app. 30% is better for small item purchases like apps and subscriptions.
Click to expand...

you keep comparing apples and oranges...

app store vs book store

completely closed iOS (nothing is as closed as iOS) vs relatively open Android, Blackberry, Wphone

On other platforms Dropbox could give the finger to the respective app store and ask users to sideload the dropbox app (thus avoiding any unreasonable terms), on iOS they can't - it's use the app store or no app at all.

iOS vs XBOX and PS3 LOL!
 
Last edited:
ristlin said:
Developers should stick to finding their own customers, not expecting a free ride to them.
Click to expand...

To rephrase your shortsighted comment: "Apple should stick to develop their own apps for their devices, not expecting a free ride from third party developers."

It's not a free ride. It's true that iOS offers a nice userbase of potential customers, but third party apps provide added value to the iOS platform. An iDevice without third party apps is basically worthless to a lot of users.
 
ristlin said:
Book publishers were around WAY longer than Amazon. Having Penguin Books and Random House on Amazon makes Amazon more valuable. Even if Amazon doesn't get their grubby paws on a FLAT monthly/per item fee PLUS "other selling fees" (aka: money that isn't theirs, by your definition).

30% is not ideal for a $10,000 TV, but then again, I don't think anyone expects you to buy that via an app. 30% is better for small item purchases like apps and subscriptions.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand.

Good day sir.
 
ristlin said:
Developers getting free access to millions of customers for a quick buck is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

The claim that Apple is doing developers a favor but not the other way around (even though the huge number of 3rd party apps in the app store is used as one of the major selling points of iOS devices) is already tiresome.
 
The problem Apple have got is that if they don't have hard rules in place the app developers will find new ways of getting round having to pay them their cut. If they allowed in app purchases outside of their eco system it would only be a matter of time before all developers were offering cut down versions for free with a link to purchase the real functionality elsewhere.

Apple have made the rules very clear and are applying them equally to everyone, not sure why or how anyone can find fault with it.
 
"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."

Such a stupid rule. I hope Timmy relaxes the AppStore guidelines a bit more.
 
It's pretty simple really. If you're going to sell through the App Store you have to use in-app purchase. It's one of the things that actually results in a BETTER user experience, because everything is one-click purchasing using the credit card you have on file.

The alternatives, i.e. popping up a web view and asking for credit card info, or worse redirecting your app to mobile safari for the user to enter their credit card info and expecting them to navigate back to your app, are worse user experiences, and if a large majority of apps used these methods it would lead to a much worse user experience.

App developers like Dropbox need to either accept that they must sell and advertise their goods outside the App Store, or sell in the App Store using in-app purchase (this one would be best for the user). Those are their two choices, just like EVERY other app developer.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Minus the fact that Apple is demading 30% gross. That 30% is already going to be greater than the profit margins so everything would be at a loss.

And the fact that you think the App store is free advertising is a joke. It might be if the App store did not have an insane number of apps. You have to be in their with over 500k apps. That is a lot of noise to cut threw to even get seen. Much less bought.

Apple is using your app as advertising claiming we have X number of apps. Never mind the fact that they do nothing to help you prompt your app.
Click to expand...

If you create a good program, people will buy it, you make the top 10 list for that week. More people buy it. You win. It's a fair system that supports the hidden gems.

You also don't seem to understand that after initial development, it costs virtually nothing to continue selling an app. It doesn't cost you extra to sell an App to one person than it does to sell it to a million.
 
ristlin said:
Developers coming up with stupid new Apps for ways to make money is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

Hum... you just repeated the same thing I replied to.

The reality is, Developers and Apple are in a symbiotic relationship. Developers make applications, Apple uses that fact to make their devices more attractive to users. The more apps, the more devices are sold, the more devices are sold, the more apps are made.

Apple can't live without the developers and the developers get paid for their apps.

Why would you classify developers as free-loaders in this scenario ? Both sides are profiting from the other. I don't see why you feel Apple is more entitled in this then the 3rd party developers. If all the developers disappeared and took their apps with them tomorrow and the App store was a big empty hole, I doubt Apple would continue selling iPhones and iPads by the million like they do today.
 
ristlin said:
Just having it on the App store is a form of advertising that is FREE. You don't pay anything. You never pay anything. You only receive money.
Click to expand...

Not true. You have to pay a developers fee to produce and distribute your app in the app store. Said another way, there is no possible way of having your app in the app store without paying Apple a fee.
 
astrorider said:
It's pretty simple really. If you're going to sell through the App Store you have to use in-app purchase. It's one of the things that actually results in a BETTER user experience, because everything is one-click purchasing using the credit card you have on file.

The alternatives, i.e. popping up a web view and asking for credit card info, or worse redirecting your app to mobile safari for the user to enter their credit card info and expecting them to navigate back to your app, are worse user experiences, and if a large majority of apps used these methods it would lead to a much worse user experience.

App developers like Dropbox need to either accept that they must sell and advertise their goods outside the App Store, or sell in the App Store using in-app purchase (this one would be best for the user). Those are their two choices, just like EVERY other app developer.
Click to expand...

It's Apple that creates that situation by 1. Prohibiting any other payment methods than their own in apps and 2. Demanding an outrageous cut for the use of their payment processor.
 
What's the problem?

They knew it was wrong yet they continued to feed it into their API.

I'd much rather apps not send me to some random page, outside of the app. Good for Apple on this.

If they didn't want this to happen, they should have followed the rules.

Lennholm said:
It's Apple that creates that situation by 1. Prohibiting any other payment methods than their own in apps and 2. Demanding an outrageous cut for the use of their payment processor.
Click to expand...

It's not "outrageous" in the least bit.


Andronicus said:
"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."

Such a stupid rule. I hope Timmy relaxes the AppStore guidelines a bit more.
Click to expand...

It's not a stupid rule, either. I'd much rather any credit card information is coming from ONE place that I know I authorized rather than several hundred small app companies that may or may not be reputable.

If you want the malware, spoofing, and phishing - go over to Android.
 
astrorider said:
The alternatives, i.e. popping up a web view and asking for credit card info, or worse redirecting your app to mobile safari for the user to enter their credit card info and expecting them to navigate back to your app, are worse user experiences, and if a large majority of apps used these methods it would lead to a much worse user experience.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Apple is charging much more what other billing companies do for this service, thanks to the fact that they don't allow any kind of competition whithin iOS. Most companies won't ever make use of it because it's priced far too high and it doesn't make sense to even consider it if you already have your own billing process in place.

Take the Kindle App as example: forget the 30% charge which is out of question already, it was impossible for Amazon to use Apple's in-app purchase even if they wanted because it's not designed to to handle that many items as available in the Amazon ebooks store. Still it was not allowed for the Kindle App to provide his own (fully functional) store web address. The result is a much worse user experience since you have to manually navigate to the store yourself without a viable alternative from Apple and without a viable alternative from anyone else thanks to Apple's rules enforcing his monopoly for in-app purchases.
 
Flitzy said:
I'd much rather apps not send me to some random page, outside of the app. Good for Apple on this.
Click to expand...

Uh ? the page is not random at all. It's dropbox's login page so that you can allow your new app to integrate with your dropbox account.

What's random about that ?
 
kas23 said:
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. I hope that's a joke. Way to label a dumb occurence as a "law" to make oneself appear important.
Click to expand...

Don't shoot the messenger my friend.

P.S. For the record, I did not down vote your post.
 
Last edited:
Flitzy said:
It's not "outrageous" in the least bit.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is. Demanding 30% for simply processing a payment is outrageous. They don't administer the registration of the subscription neither do they host nor deliver the content to the customer. All they do is process the payment. Other payment processors take about 2-5%.
It's not worth 30% and that's why content providers take a different, less convenient route.
 
Flitzy said:
It's not "outrageous" in the least bit.




It's not a stupid rule, either. I'd much rather any credit card information is coming from ONE place that I know I authorized rather than several hundred small app companies that may or may not be reputable.

If you want the malware, spoofing, and phishing - go over to Android.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you love monopolies in other areas of your life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back