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

[gotluck]

iOS / app stores are NOT MONOPOLIES, simply because the iPad/iPhone/Mac OS X are not monopolies. You can easily buy a different Tablet, phone or computer.

Apple has every right to ask developers to pay $1,000,000 to start writing apps for their devices. There is no 'right' that you have to let people write applications for your devices. Apple has every 'right' to only make Apps itself. Apple could hire 10,000 developers on it's own if it wanted to, and be the only developer of iOS apps, and never release an SDK or developer tools. There is ZERO wrong with this if Apple decided to do this.

This is exactly what Atari did in the early days, and then after the Atari 2600 became extremely popular, Atari had very high licensing fees to companies such as Activision so Activision could produce it's own applications (cartridges).

This whole monopoly talk is very simpleton logic. It would only work if iOS had 90-100% of the Tablet/phone or computer marketplace.

If the courts declared that jailbreaking was legal because the user owns the phone and could do with it what they please (which they did) I believe its reasonable to then construe that Apple limiting what you can put on your own property is inappropriate. Perhaps monopoly is the wrong term, but that's just semantics.

All I know is that if microsoft did the same thing with windows, itd all be shot to hell by the courts. Now, you may be right when you say that its the 90% marketshare that creates the issue in that circumstance.

I would argue that the iPad's marketshare is high enough to warrant suspicion, however, not the iPhone.

Nice oxymoron. I can play this game too. Your comment was true yet false.

Well, mac was around when windows was prosecuted.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well MOST free-to-play apps do distribute through Apple and I think it's greedy for the developer to find ways to avoid the 30% charge.

You're confusing 2 points here. Free apps distributed through Apple pay Apple for the priviledge to do so. 99$/year. That's what it costs to host a free application on the App store.

30% cut is if you want to charge for your application, then Apple gets 30% of the purchase price.

All of this is fine.

However, even if you have a payment processor, Apple is also now making it obligatory to use them as a payment processor for any purchases made in your app. Want to deal with Visa instead ? Nope, it's Apple only. And Apple charges 30% for payment processing. That's greedy.

 

[JohnDoe98]

The usual jailbreaking crowd did manage to crack it that first day, but they haven't released it to the public yet. In fact, there's talk that they're planning on delaying the jailbreak for the iOS 6 release so they don't have to go through combing for exploits again.

Yeah, jailbreaking is legal, but Apple does not make it easy for people to do.

If you pay the 99$ to be an app developer it is very easy to install third-party apps. The problem is people don't want to pay the 99$. So it is only natural they should wait the month or two for the jailbreakers to come up with a free tweak. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple isn't exclusive to the crowd. Game developers have tried hard to make their game hard to crack. Sony constantly updates its firmware to keep people from unlocking it to upload third party programs (and even took Hotz to court). And Microsoft is all about lock and key. The point is, as a developer, you have the right to force users to use the program the way you want it to. Among the first things you learn in programing is separating the public side from the back end. You also learn how to verify inputs. All of these work toward the idea of controlling the environment to funnel users to the experience you want them to have.

If open ware is truly the most ideal platform, Ubuntu would have become the dominating OS by now. The fact remains that computing is an ever changing field that almost demands structure to ensure user experience. I personally hated linux.

There's structure, then there's corralling. Apple has a tendency to err more towards the latter when it comes to iOS. You're only allowed to get apps through their app store...which wouldn't be so terrible if it weren't for the myriad unnecessary restrictions they put on app developers regarding their apps.

I can understand why Apple would want to lock down their OS, specially on a portable device where battery life is a big concern. You want things running as thinly as possible. But there is a point where it becomes a little too much, where they're exerting control simply because they can. Apple does tend to take that extra step towards more often than not.

 

[ristlin]

This isn't about the customers however, it's about the content providers and as we can see, they rather work around Apple's restriction with a less convenient solution where really, all parties involved loses.
So yeah, it's unfair.
In both cases the customer loses, playing along with Apple means higher price for the customer, working around Apple's policy means less convenience.
If the content provider plays along with Apple, Apple win big time and the content provider lose big time. Content provider works around Apple's policy; Apple and CP lose equally.

If it is truly unfair, the iPhone would have never reached the 1% marketshare goal, would have never developed the largest App store on the planet, and would have never reached the 4S generation iPhone.

The point is, the policy has been in place from the start. The success stories of developers in the billion-dollar iOS app market shows that the majority think its fair.

And this isn't opinion, these are plain facts.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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.

The fact that you believe that is a case is even funnier. Try getting it to happen and tell me how it goes. There is just way to much noise for that to happen.

The rest of your entire argument falls apart because your primary bases is false.

 

[ristlin]

You're confusing 2 points here. Free apps distributed through Apple pay Apple for the priviledge to do so. 99$/year. That's what it costs to host a free application on the App store.

30% cut is if you want to charge for your application, then Apple gets 30% of the purchase price.

All of this is fine.

However, even if you have a payment processor, Apple is also now making it obligatory to use them as a payment processor for any purchases made in your app. Want to deal with Visa instead ? Nope, it's Apple only. And Apple charges 30% for payment processing. That's greedy.

They charge 30% for any exchange of money that occurs via Apps obtained on the iOS App Store. I think that is fair. They are still hosting the App.

I will concede perhaps a reduction to the cut if all they are doing is hosting the App and you provide your own payment processing for in-app purchases.

 

[Daveoc64]

If it is truly unfair, the iPhone would have never reached the 1% marketshare goal, would have never developed the largest App store on the planet, and would have never reached the 4S generation iPhone.

I don't think that's true.

If you look at the App Store reviews, you can see how people really think.

Look at Facebook. They claim to have more iOS users than there are iOS devices - yet it's got a 2 star rating.

Just because something is popular, it doesn't mean it's the best thing or that it couldn't be improved.

I regularly see reviews for all sorts of Apps complaining that Apps suck because of the App Store's restrictions - and the developers are powerless to do anything about it.

 

[Renzatic]

If you pay the 99$ to be an app developer it is very easy to install third-party apps. The problem is people don't want to pay the 99$. So it is only natural they should wait the month or two for the jailbreakers to come up with a free tweak. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

If I were a programmer intended on making money off iOS, that'd be justifiable. But I'm not. I just want to use my iPad how I want to. Tweak the OS a little bit here and there. Play Maniac Mansion. Download a few nicely featured apps I couldn't get through the App Store for various arbitrary reasons. Why should I pay Apple $100 for that privileged? Haven't I already given them enough when I bought the thing?

 

[ristlin]

The fact that you believe that is a case is even funnier. Try getting it to happen and tell me how it goes. There is just way to much noise for that to happen.

The rest of your entire argument falls apart because your primary bases is false.

Well I never said I was a great programmer so I'm sure I can't replicate another's success. But I see new programs reach the top list all the time. Just last week I picked up yet ANOTHER painting program that made it on the featured list because it beats the c**p out of Sketchbook Pro. It happens all the time.

Your pessimism ignores the fact that most apps just suck.

 

[astrorider]

If it's a better user experience users interested in it would ask for it even in the face of competition, and App developers tend to listen to their customers. Not to mention that users might also want to have a cheaper alternative even if with a worse user experience.

My understanding, from watching Apple over the years, is that they prefer the best user experience (or product) over the cheapest. Users who disagree have several choices.

 

[gotluck]

If it is truly unfair, the iPhone would have never reached the 1% marketshare goal, would have never developed the largest App store on the planet, and would have never reached the 4S generation iPhone.

The point is, the policy has been in place from the start. The success stories of developers in the billion-dollar iOS app market shows that the majority think its fair.

And this isn't opinion, these are plain facts.

Fair enough, but the user experience for those that enjoy the closed system would remain unchanged if apple were to offer the damned checkbox 'allow 3rd party apps'. You don't have to check it. It all boils down to Apple doesn't believe in choice.

Apples hardware is unparalleled I'm only mad because I care

 

[Bubba Satori]

In the beginning.

In the end.

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

 

[ristlin]

I don't think that's true.

If you look at the App Store reviews, you can see how people really think.

Look at Facebook. They claim to have more iOS users than there are iOS devices - yet it's got a 2 star rating.

Just because something is popular, it doesn't mean it's the best thing or that it couldn't be improved.

I regularly see reviews for all sorts of Apps complaining that Apps suck because of the App Store's restrictions - and the developers are powerless to do anything about it.

Facebook's App does suck. People still use it because they have their iOS device that they like and would like to Facebook while on it.

iPhone is a great product. App Store is a great service. Neither are perfect, but the change many of you are suggesting is not the way to make it better -- at least not with the evidence we have so far.

If you can give me specific example of a developer being limited and unable to create a star product because of Apple's policy, then I may be able to see your perspective.

 

[pmz]

Dropbox is a much more versatile cloud storage solution than iCloud. I have 20+GB of free storage through referrals and I can store all my most important documents and work files on there no matter what file type they are. It also provides an easy way to share those files. How is that stuck in the past?

No it isn't. Its just the same old folder management nightmare, moved to the cloud.

It has its uses, not all of which are replaced by iCloud, but that's Apple's fault for not rolling more features into iCloud......yet.

Key word being Yet. I almost never use Dropbox for anything but the few things I can't do with iCloud. I'm much happier with iCloud behavior overall, and want my Apps to use iCloud, NOT Dropbox.

Where Dropbox has no room to grow at all, iCloud will continue to expand, and eventually utterly eclipse everything that Dropbox is good for.

Any forward thinking strategy for a consumer or developer that involves Dropbox instead of iCloud is an utter mistake.

 

[JohnDoe98]

If I were a programmer intended on making money off iOS, that'd be justifiable. But I'm not. I just want to use my iPad how I want to. Tweak the OS a little bit here and there. Play Maniac Mansion. Download a few nicely featured apps I couldn't get through the App Store for various arbitrary reasons. Why should I pay Apple $100 for that privileged? Haven't I already given them enough when I bought the thing?

Wait, you didn't know it was a closed system when you bought the iPad? Was there false advertising here? When you buy a car, do you expect them to mod it for you for free?

 

[Lennholm]

If it is truly unfair, the iPhone would have never reached the 1% marketshare goal, would have never developed the largest App store on the planet, and would have never reached the 4S generation iPhone.

The point is, the policy has been in place from the start. The success stories of developers in the billion-dollar iOS app market shows that the majority think its fair.

And this isn't opinion, these are plain facts.

IAP and IAS weren't around from the start, and I strongly doubt that they've had a significant impact on the growth of the App Store.
IMO, 30% on the price of apps, where Apple reviews hosts, display and deliver the product is perfectly reasonable and fine, even a good deal for the developers. I'm talking exclusively about IAP and IAS.

 

[ristlin]

No it isn't. Its just the same old folder management nightmare, moved to the cloud.

It has its uses, not all of which are replaced by iCloud, but that's Apple's fault for not rolling more features into iCloud......yet.

Key word being Yet. I almost never use Dropbox for anything but the few things I can't do with iCloud. I'm much happier with iCloud behavior overall, and want my Apps to use iCloud, NOT Dropbox.

Where Dropbox has no room to grow at all, iCloud will continue to expand, and eventually utterly eclipse everything that Dropbox is good for.

Any forward thinking strategy for a consumer or developer that involves Dropbox instead of iCloud is an utter mistake.

I agree. I have been waiting for iCloud Pages update but buckled and bought Writer. It's the best freaking Mac App ever. Seamless sync of all my files across all my devices (and desktop). Dropbox, not so seamless.

 

[Starfighter]

Like some have said, it's a matter of following the rules. If Dropbox offers to sell it's product outside the App Store, then Dropbox breaks the rules. I'm not defending this but I don't think we need to act surprised.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Fair enough, but the user experience for those that enjoy the closed system would remain unchanged if apple were to offer the damned checkbox 'allow 3rd party apps'. You don't have to check it. It all boils down to Apple doesn't believe in choice.

Apples hardware is unparalleled I'm only mad because I care

Exactly, they prefer to dictate the user experience, making sure it meets their desired quality rather than offering you unlimited choice. Again I'm not sure I see the point of the criticism here.

 

[ristlin]

IAP and IAS weren't around from the start, and I strongly doubt that they've had a significant impact on the growth of the App Store.
IMO, 30% on the price of apps, where Apple reviews hosts, display and deliver the product is perfectly reasonable and fine, even a good deal for the developers. I'm talking exclusively about IAP and IAS.

Just like laws change to catch up to devious citizens, so too Apple had to alter their wording to affect a loophole in which developers were getting all the benefit of being in the ecosystem without paying the 30% cut. IAP and IAS are a response to a loophole.

 

[Renzatic]

Wait, you didn't know it was a closed system when you bought the iPad? Was there false advertising here? When you buy a car, do you expect them to mod it for you for free?

Steve Job's ghost started haunting me, and he said he wouldn't quit moving my furniture around until I bought an iPad. It wasn't my choice.

IT'S NOT FENG SHUI WHEN I KEEP BASHING MY SHINS INTO THE DRESSER WHEN I GO TAKE A PEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, STEVE'S GHOST!

Okay. The fact is the already iPad does do quite a bit of the things I need it to do. I knew what I was getting into when I got it, and I've ended up liking it a good bit more than I thought it would. Thing is, with a few less restrictions on Apple's end, I could end up loving it. That's why I'm bitching, whining, moaning, and groaning.

 

[gotluck]

Exactly, they prefer to dictate the user experience, making sure it meets their desired quality rather than offering you unlimited choice. Again I'm not sure I see the point of the criticism here.

Mostly becuase I think they keep it closed to keep their hands on the cash from apps, not to 'dictate the user experience'. What if I'm old enough to cross the street by myself now?

I must be more cynical.

 

[KnightWRX]

They charge 30% for any exchange of money that occurs via Apps obtained on the iOS App Store. I think that is fair. They are still hosting the App.

Again, you're confusing 2 things. I don't know why this is so hard...

99$/year, that gets you :

- Hosting in the app store for your app
- distribution of it
- payment processing at the cost of 30% if you decide to charge for it.

No one is contesting that. Now want to sell content through your app (which is either a catalog or a game or whatever), Apple makes it obligatory to use them as a payment processor for 30% cut. This gives you :

- payment processing.

That is all. The actual content must be hosted and served from your own infrastructure. Have a deal with visa for 3% of transactions ? Sorry, no can do.

I will concede perhaps a reduction to the cut if all they are doing is hosting the App and you provide your own payment processing for in-app purchases.

In-App purchases/subscript provide no hosting at all. You must provide your own content to your users from your infrastructure. Apple makes it obligatory to use their payment system for 30% though. This is way above market value.

Again, you're highly confused.

 

[Daveoc64]

If you can give me specific example of a developer being limited and unable to create a star product because of Apple's policy, then I may be able to see your perspective.

One that springs to mind is the UK's national lottery App:

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/national-lottery-official/id406675149?mt=8

The App Store's rules forbid any App selling lottery tickets, yet if you go through the App reviews, the number one request is the ability to buy tickets.