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

[ristlin]

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.

Maybe you are lol. If you look, they make nothing (compared to their hardware business) from the App Store. The App Store, from the start, was aimed to be a neutral business.

You need to remember, continual iOS develop costs money that is probably fueled by whatever extra they make.

 

[astrorider]

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.

The largest growing segment of apps in the App Store is insignificant?
http://www.padgadget.com/2012/01/17...ed-to-be-the-biggest-market-in-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.

Apple reviews in app purchases, they provide an easy way to integrate this payment method into your app, they provide a consistent interface for in app purchase for all apps, they handle tax laws for however many countries have App Stores now (100+?), and they hand you a market of 250 million customers one click away from buying your product. It's a good deal for developers...the only way you make it out as though it's not is to compare Apples to Oranges (Visa, paypal, etc).

 

[ristlin]

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.

That's a U.S. policy, not Apple's. It's against the law in many States to sell lotto tickets or any other "fee to enter" raffle, etc. California is one of those States.

 

[macUser2007]

If it's unfair, you have a right to buy a different product. The point is, as a user, I appreciate the closed system and would find it unfair for me if they changed their policy now, despite having it in place for many years now since the very first iPhone.

This is just....

But you forget that Jobs wanted no apps at all on the first iPhone. The app store came only later, when Android was looming on the horizon and consumers were kicking and screaming for real apps. Oh, and Apple figured out how to squeeze every penny from those within the iOS corral.

 

[JohnDoe98]

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.



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.

What happens when someone makes a program with all the content you want, releases it "locked" for free so that Apple does all the hosting, and then inside the app charges you a "unlock" fee. Wouldn't that circumvent the 30$, do none of the hosting, advertising, or anything else, and let Apple do all the work, for free? How do you restrict this?

 

[Daveoc64]

That's a U.S. policy, not Apple's. It's against the law in many States to sell lotto tickets or any other "fee to enter" raffle, etc. California is one of those States.

Why apply it everywhere though?

The App is only available in the UK and can only be used by UK residents.

 

[KnightWRX]

What happens when someone makes a program with all the content you want, releases it "locked" for free so that Apple does all the hosting, and then inside the app charges you a "unlock" fee. Wouldn't that circumvent the 30$, do none of the hosting, advertising, or anything else, and let Apple do all the work, for free? How do you restrict this?

Then Apple should reject an App that has so much "locked" content in the approval process, not force themselves as a payment processor.

 

[ristlin]

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.



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.

Careful, you might get a moderator message about being insulting! ("fool" is considered insulting).

In the end, it remains that Apple can charge whatever they want since they still have the final say on whether your App can or cannot go into the store. And if you want to reach iOS customers through the App Store, a cut of any money you receive from those customers goes to Apple. Simple as that. No need for a page-long description that says nothing new.

----------

Then Apple should reject an App that has so much "locked" content in the approval process, not force themselves as a payment processor.

That's what they are essentially doing by forcing themselves as the payment processor.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Then Apple should reject an App that has so much "locked" content in the approval process, not force themselves as a payment processor.

That's going to make the approval process a logistical nightmare and far more arbitrary than it already is. Apple's solution is to determine one standard across the board. I agree with you there is something terribly unsatisfying in this, but as far as I can tell, there is some rationale to it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Careful, you might get a moderator message about being insulting! ("fool" is considered insulting).

I didn't post any insults, nor is fool a word in my post. Are you even reading my posts ?

In the end, it remains that Apple can charge whatever they want since they still have the final say on whether your App can or cannot go into the store. And if you want to reach iOS customers through the App Store, a cut of any money you receive from those customers goes to Apple. Simple as that. No need for a page-long description that says nothing new.

You're conflating IAP/IAS with standard App hosting/selling. They are distinct services, it's the forced tying Apple is doing that people find greedy. Sure Apple can make up whatever rules they want, but then developers are entitled to have a negative opinion on said rules.

 

[ristlin]

This is just....

But you forget that Jobs wanted no apps at all on the first iPhone. The app store came only later, when Android was looming on the horizon and consumers were kicking and screaming for real apps. Oh, and Apple figured out how to squeeze every penny from those within the iOS corral.

And yet the iOS app store makes up less than 1% of their revenues and profits per year. Yeah, sure. They are definitely squeezing the pennies there.

 

[KnightWRX]

That's going to make the approval process a logistical nightmare and far more arbitrary than it already is. Apple's solution is to determine one standard across the board. I agree with you there is something terribly unsatisfying in this, but as far as I can tell, there is some rationale to it.

It's not anymore convulted than Apple refusing any apps that uses a payment processor other then themselves.

 

[JohnDoe98]

It's not anymore convulted than Apple refusing any apps that uses a payment processor other then themselves.

Not exactly. I rather give a greater cut of my profit to Apple and not have to deal with the anxiety of a far more convoluted approval process than vice versa.

 

[spstanley]

Apple trying to get 30% of everything in the universe is getting tiresome.

Well, their universe, anyway.

 

[ristlin]

I didn't post any insults, nor is fool a word in my post. Are you even reading my posts ?



You're conflating IAP/IAS with standard App hosting/selling. They are distinct services, it's the forced tying Apple is doing that people find greedy. Sure Apple can make up whatever rules they want, but then developers are entitled to have a negative opinion on said rules.

I look at this way:
Free Apps
Paid Apps

From these two options you can go onto:
Free Apps with IAP/IAS
Paid Apps with IAP/IAS

In many situations, developers are making free apps to bypass the 30% cut, then charging a IAS in order to "unlock" the full potential of the game or app. Bypassing the 30% cut to Apple that would have normally been the cost of the app.

In my mind, it is greedy for developers to do this.

Obviously, there are cases where developers may be selling something completely different (an example stated earlier, a TV) and unrelated to the App. In those situations, I agree a better model should be in place. But in most situations, I'm sure you'll find developers jumping to IAP/IAS to bypass the 30% cut.

 

[KnightWRX]

Not exactly. I rather give a greater cut of my profit to Apple and not have to deal with the anxiety of a far more convoluted approval process than vice versa.

You rather, maybe not all developers would rather.

----------

I look at this way:
Free Apps
Paid Apps

From these two options you can go onto:
Free Apps with IAP/IAS
Paid Apps with IAP/IAS

In many situations, developers are making free apps to bypass the 30% cut, then charging a IAS in order to "unlock" the full potential of the game or app. Bypassing the 30% cut to Apple that would have normally been the cost of the app.

In my mind, it is greedy for developers to do this.

Obviously, there are cases where developers may be selling something completely different (an example stated earlier, a TV) and unrelated to the App. In those situations, I agree a better model should be in place. But in most situations, I'm sure you'll find developers jumping to IAP/IAS to bypass the 30% cut.

If you use IAP/IAS, you have to use Apple, it's their API. However, they are making use of their API mandatory. That's what is greedy.

 

[Daveoc64]

I'm sure you'll find developers jumping to IAP/IAS to bypass the 30% cut.

I think you'll find that most developers are pushing "Free" apps with IAP because they're a great way of making money.

You pull people in to your free App/game and then sell them a virtual add on that costs absolutely nothing to offer (*cough*Farmville*cough*) and rake the money in.

 

[ristlin]

You rather, maybe not all developers would rather.

----------



If you use IAP/IAS, you have to use Apple, it's their API. However, they are making use of their API mandatory. That's what is greedy.

Shouldn't they have the right to make it mandatory for the approval process? What if the API you use opens up a loophole in iOS that allows a developer to access private information, etc.? It's ultimately Apple's head that is at stake. They are responsible for what goes on in their ecosystem, as demonstrated countless times by zealous lawyers.

----------

I think you'll find that most developers are pushing "Free" apps with IAP because they're a great way of making money.

You pull people in to your free App/game and then sell them a virtual add on that costs absolutely nothing to offer (*cough*Farmville*cough*) and rake the money in.

Exactly. It's the Free-to-play model that is becoming more popular in gaming. I don't see the problem with Apple charging the standard rate for those micro transactions as well. (except that the developer is making less money on each pony that is sold).

 

[i.mac]

And this is good for users how?

Not every thing is about the users.

Telling folks about potential features from the competition ( ie goggle) may not be a good business practice.

 

[KnightWRX]

Shouldn't they have the right to make it mandatory for the approval process? What if the API you use opens up a loophole in iOS that allows a developer to access private information, etc.?

If an external API opens up a loophole in iOS, Apple has a security flaw in iOS. No API should be mandatory, you should be able to build your own on top of the lower level, developer accessible APIs (including the socket API).

 

[Porchland]

Apple trying to get 30% of everything in the universe is getting tiresome.

Apple's sandbox, Apple's rules. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

As long as Apple is not running afoul of antitrust and fair trade laws, they can run their App Store however they want.

 

[i.mac]

And yet the iOS app store makes up less than 1% of their revenues and profits per year. Yeah, sure. They are definitely squeezing the pennies there.

Revenues does not equal profits.

 

[ristlin]

If an external API opens up a loophole in iOS, Apple has a security flaw in iOS. No API should be mandatory, you should be able to build your own on top of the lower level, developer accessible APIs (including the socket API).

I'm not very familiar with the topic, but I think it still boils down to the simple "our store, our rules." I don't see Wal-Mart buckling to manufacturer demands when it comes to what products they decide to sell.

 

[JohnDoe98]

I'm not very familiar with the topic, but I think it still boils down to the simple "our store, our rules." I don't see Wal-Mart buckling to manufacturer demands when it comes to what products they decide to sell.

Perhaps but his point is if you employ that kind of policy, expect to be criticized for it.

 

[ristlin]

Revenues does not equal profits.

About $300 million in profits for Apple. Just shy of 2% from what Apple makes elsewhere. It's ironic how people rage over what is essentially pennies for Apple.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/tech/29964545_1_app-store-gene-munster-apple

----------

Perhaps but his point is if you employ that kind of policy, expect to be criticized for it.

My point is that it is ironic for people to do so. Even with this "undesirable" model, most developers are still coming out as winners. Are they not?