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

[heisetax]

And this is good for users how?

This is why my iToys are really only used for things that I can cut Apple out of once in a while. I only do Kindle Books straight from Amazon's web site. The same would hold true for Drop Box & any other program that Apple wants control of when they do not need it. This over control by Apple is why I do not like any on Apple's App Stores. Of my 600+ apps on all of my iToys only 3 or 4 are purchased ones. Mainly this is done because I so dislike the purchasing of my software from one source that I forgo almost all of those that are not free.

TheApp Stores are bad for Apple business. In my opinion they are bad for 3rd party software developers. I have very few free apps for my Mac, while I basically only have free apps for my iToys.

 

[angelneo]

I'm slightly out of touch but is the clause where you are not allowed to sell your content at a lower price out of the app store still in Apple terms of use?

 

[JHankwitz]

^ Apple doesn't believe in choice.

Right. They only believe in being able to control what's being run on their iOS to ensure reliability and a good customer experience. I want to be able to install any hack I want to run! If it interfears with their iOS, it's their fault for sure.

 

[kps]

This sucks. Dropbox integrated apps are invaluable for those needing productivity outside Apple's walled garden.

If you need productivity outside Apple's walled garden, why the heck would you buy an iOS device in the first place?

 

[Renzatic]

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

I'd say the issue skirts fairly close to being a bit antitrustish, specially if the much ballyhooed Post-PC future comes about, and the vast majority of the buying public start picking up iPads in lieu of laptops and desktops.

What they're basically doing here is forcing competitors to raise prices to compensate for lost income due to Apple's 30% cut. A cut none of their competitors require for a subscription service. But since their competitors can't offer their services for a lower price elsewhere (per the terms), they're forced into either a take it or leave it situation, or have to find an awkward workaround to bypass it. This basically means Apple products will ultimately be easier to use on Apple's own platform than their competitors, due to the rules Apple has set in place that benefit no one but themselves. If the iPad becomes THE platform for the majority of the buying public, much like Windows was until fairly recently, then yeah, it's a fairly cut and dry antitrust issue.

Also HEY FROM GEORGIA!

 

[unlinked]

Apple isn't telling you NOT to get Dropbox. They are simply asking for a cut (from the developer) if you decide to get a Dropbox subscription via the App you found on the App Store.

Seems perfectly fair to me. Apple deserves a share of the app makers revenue because some people only bought the app/service because of the hardware. The app makers deserve a share of the hardware revenue because some people only bought the hardware because of the apps. Simples.

----------

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.

I could have sworn developer accounts had an annual fee.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

IAP/IAS has nothing to do with the store though. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Once the app is sold according to the terms set forth in the developer agreement, what goes on between the user and the developer inside said app should not have to use Apple's infrastructure if the developer and the user don't want to.

You have to be a developer to actually get this. You aren't by your own admission.

----------

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?

Depends who you talk to. Amazon for instance had to cut out all purchasing and links to their online site in the Kindle app because for them, implementing IAP/IAS meant they basically had to spend money for every book sold.

This in turn leads to Kindle on iOS being crippled compared to Kindle on other platforms, which is bad for the user.

 

[Jasoco]

Don't screw this up, Apple. DropBox integration is the greatest thing ever. And one day I hope to also have Google Drive integration in apps too. iCloud is no where near as awesome in the same ways as DropBox/Google Drive are.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple isn't telling you NOT to get Dropbox. They are simply asking for a cut (from the developer) if you decide to get a Dropbox subscription via the App you found on the App Store.

Okay, taking a 30% cut from an app is fine. Apple deserves that cut, and I've previous stated why. But 30% off a monthly subscription? Every month? 30% of every book sold through another online bookstore via app? Why do they deserve that? Because "people wouldn't have bought the app if it weren't for the iPad"? By that logic, brick and mortar stores should give Microsoft a cut off every boxed piece of software sold because, hey, they wouldn't be buying it if MS didn't release Windows.

It doesn't cost Apple anything for Netflix to stream movies through the iPad, but it costs Netflix tons to run those servers. Plus, the availability of the Netflix app makes the iPad a potentially more desirable product, and thus makes it more likely to sell. So if the service itself isn't costing Apple a single solitary dime, and the service in turn works as an advertising point for their products, why does Apple deserve even more? Deserve to the point that they're potentially taking 30% of Netflix's monthly profits.

It's gone well beyond being a beneficial agreement to all parties involved to a straight up price gouging scheme.

 

[babyj]

IAP/IAS has nothing to do with the store though. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Once the app is sold according to the terms set forth in the developer agreement, what goes on between the user and the developer inside said app should not have to use Apple's infrastructure if the developer and the user don't want to.

Where do you draw the line?

How about if I make an app to sell music? Is it fair that I give the app away, so Apple get nothing, then I sell cut price music which they get nothing for?

You might argue that shouldn't be allowed but Dropbox should be. Where is the difference. Again, where do you draw the line?

Remember that if Dropbox didn't pay the app store fee, they can market their services with apps for free and then sell direct without Apple getting their cut. Why should Dropbox be allowed to use the Apple infrastructure for free and to compete with Apple's iCloud without Apple getting a cut?

If you go through the various options there is only one logical place for Apple to draw the line, which is that all app related purchases go through the app store and that they get a cut.

 

[dgdosen]

That's pretty craptacular on Apple's part. I'd hope an attorney could argue that Apple has no right to infringe on how an app that is legally selling functionality through the store cannot infringe on a user for an indirect underlying data service.

There's an idea of some kind of value added tax that Apple is trying to game. If the seller had their own private data store that they could in turn directly charge a customer for - Apple has a gripe. But indirect data?

No, Apple should just build a better API to compete for user bits.

They're stance is wrong.

 

[Renzatic]

Remember that if Dropbox didn't pay the app store fee, they can market their services with apps for free and then sell direct without Apple getting their cut. Why should Dropbox be allowed to use the Apple infrastructure for free and to compete with Apple's iCloud without Apple getting a cut?

They do it on OSX, Windows, and Linux all the time. No one complains there.

The only thing Dropbox has to do with the "Apple infrastructure" is them having people access the executable and all subsequent updates through the App Store. But that's the service Apple willing provides, of which Dropbox has already paid for. If they want to profit off every single thing that runs through their setup, they should nix free apps altogether.

Once you download the program to your iPad, the vast majority of its features are run through Dropbox's servers.

 

[JohnDoe98]

That's pretty craptacular on Apple's part. I'd hope an attorney could argue that Apple has no right to infringe on how an app that is legally selling functionality through the store cannot infringe on a user for an indirect underlying data service.

There's an idea of some kind of value added tax that Apple is trying to game. If the seller had their own private data store that they could in turn directly charge a customer for - Apple has a gripe. But indirect data?

No, Apple should just build a better API to compete for user bits.

They're stance is wrong.

So propose a better alternative that protects Apple from getting gamed and giving a free infrastructure to all who want it. Simply saying "make a better API" isn't a concrete suggestion.

If you make the subscription cut lower than the 30% that is being asked for all purchases on Apple's store, App developers will simply divert all the payments to the subscription model, making the 30% irrelevant. And if you say this should be dealt with at the App approval stage, the problem as was asked by Babyj is where do you draw the line as to what is allowed into subscription versus what isn't. Again, propose concrete alternatives if you want to be taken seriously.

----------

They do it on OSX, Windows, and Linux all the time. No one complains there.

I don't know about the other stores, but the OSX store will likely follow the iOS direction in the future.

The only thing Dropbox has to do with the "Apple infrastructure" is them having people access the executable and all subsequent updates through the App Store.

Not so, all the content could be pushed through updates to the executable, making the developer not have to host anything on his own servers. All he has to do is require a subscription to unlock the executable's full features every month when he releases a new executable.

But that's the service Apple willing provides, of which Dropbox has already paid for. If they want to profit off every single thing that runs through their setup, they should nix free apps.

That's not going to happen and we all know it. It attracts people to the store.

Once you download the program to your iPad, the vast majority of its features are run through Dropbox's servers.

That could easily be changed for many programs though. Perhaps not Dropbox, Amazon, and Netflix, but the point again is the App Store rules have to be written for the majority and not the exceptions.

 

[Renzatic]

So propose a better alternative that protects Apple from getting gamed and giving a free infrastructure to all who want it. Simply saying "make a better API" isn't a concrete suggestion.

Explain how Apple is being "gamed".

Not so, all the content could be pushed through updates to the executable, making the developer not have to host anything on his own servers. All he has to do is require a subscription to unlock the executable's full features every month when he releases a new executable.

Right, but they don't have the option to do so themselves. They're set up in a lose lose situation. "You want to use our service and take advantage of our customer base, you have to go through our store". That's fine and agreeable. They pay their developer license, and offer the app up on the store.

So they set up their servers to host gigs and gigs of information being run through them. Dropbox probably parses through more data in a single day than the App Store does in a week. It costs money to support servers capable of dealing with that much traffic. Costs money to hire programmers and IT guys to make sure it all runs smoothly. They offer up their free service, and offset the rest with larger storage space tied to a subscription fee. They somehow end up making money.

Then Apple turns around and says "nuh uh. we want 30% of your monthly fees". "Why", says Drobox. "We're not burdening you with anything beyond hosting our small app file". "Because you're using our platform", replies Apple, "we want a cut of those monthly profits because we're hosting your app in OUR App Store". Woo.

Not exactly the most fair thing in the world, is it?

That's not going to happen and we all know it. It attracts people to the store.

Exactly.

That could easily be changed for many programs though. Perhaps not Dropbox, Amazon, and Netflix, but the point again is the App Store rules have to be written for the majority and not the exceptions.

It's a simple fact they shouldn't be taking a 30% of anything bought beyond their servers. At all. It costs Apple nothing beyond hosting the executable file. They have no reason to eat into another company's bottom line simply because they had the audacity to force them to host the app through the storefront they themselves forced the app programmers to use.

 

[lilo777]

So propose a better alternative that protects Apple from getting gamed and giving a free infrastructure to all who want it. Simply saying "make a better API" isn't a concrete suggestion.

If you make the subscription cut lower than the 30% that is being asked for all purchases on Apple's store, App developers will simply divert all the payments to the subscription model, making the 30% irrelevant. And if you say this should be dealt with at the App approval stage, the problem as was asked by Babyj is where do you draw the line as to what is allowed into subscription versus what isn't. Again, propose concrete alternatives if you want to be taken seriously.

----------



I don't know about the other stores, but the OSX store will likely follow the iOS direction in the future.



Not so, all the content could be pushed through updates to the executable, making the developer not have to host anything on his own servers. All he has to do is require a subscription to unlock the executable's full features every month when he releases a new executable.



That's not going to happen and we all know it. It attracts people to the store.



That could easily be changed for many programs though. Perhaps not Dropbox, Amazon, and Netflix, but the point again is the App Store rules have to be written for the majority and not the exceptions.

Apple position is good for most smart phone users (meaning Android phone owners). App Developers can now concentrate on Android.

 

[KnightWRX]

Where do you draw the line?

How about if I make an app to sell music? Is it fair that I give the app away, so Apple get nothing, then I sell cut price music which they get nothing for?

Apple gets 99$/year for free applications and gets to advertise that they support your service as a selling point for iOS devices. Why do you feel they are entitled to more ?

Why should they get a cut if they aren't involved in the music purchasing that happens afterwards ? You host the music, you distribute it to user through your own infrastructure and you use your own payment processor.

 

[fins831]

Apple position is good for most smart phone users (meaning Android phone owners). App Developers can now concentrate on Android.

this has nothing do with their position on drop box integration, this has to do with drop box app having a sign up and popup for subs to their service in app, when all that should be done privately....they don't care if you pay for their service, unless they get a cut, if they don't want to give a cut, they have to make sure dropbox and all apps with integration don't ask for signups, just ask for login...

its simple, and you people are making it as apple is out to get dropbox, they aren't....they just want a cut if the app wants to get subs, if they chose not to, then they fix the app and problem solved.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Apple gets 99$/year for free applications and gets to advertise that they support your service as a selling point for iOS devices. Why do you feel they are entitled to more ?

Must you purchase a 99$ developer license to submit an App to the App Store? Or can you submit it without that license? If the latter you are paying the 99$ for the benefits the developer tools offer you and not for the ability to submit apps to the Store.

Why should they get a cut if they aren't involved in the music purchasing that happens afterwards ? You host the music, you distribute it to user through your own infrastructure and you use your own payment processor.

Again that might be ok for music, video, and book services where they content must be hosted by the developers. But consider this example. I decide I want to make a program to compete with Garmin. Now, instead of hosting the maps myself and asking my customers to purchase them individually through in-App purchases where I am responsible for hosting the files, I simply add them all into my free app and require people to buy unlock codes in order to get access to the included maps. This way Apple hosts my App and all the content that is constantly being updated to it every month. They are responsible for all the storage, distribution, etc.

Now you say regulate that at the approval stage. But again, how does one establish non-arbitrary rules that don't discriminate against certain developers? How does one keep the developers confident their Apps will get approved? I think many people are proposing unrealistic and over-simplified solutions.

----------

Explain how Apple is being "gamed".

See my reply above to KnightWRX, where I give an example how one might do so.

Then Apple turns around and says "nuh uh. we want 30% of your monthly fees". "Why", says Drobox. "We're not burdening you with anything beyond hosting our small app file". "Because you're using our platform", replies Apple, "we want a cut of those monthly profits because we're hosting your app in OUR App Store". Woo.

Not exactly the most fair thing in the world, is it?

Dropbox can sell the subscription on their website and release their software on the App store to access that subscription if they don't want to pay the 30% fee. The point is if they want to make use of the convenience of in-App subscriptions, they must abide by the policy in place that guarantees that in other instances, like the one mentioned at the beginning of this post, don't happen.

It's a simple fact they shouldn't be taking a 30% of anything bought beyond their servers. At all. It costs Apple nothing beyond hosting the executable file. They have no reason to eat into another company's bottom line simply because they had the audacity to force them to host the app through the storefront they themselves forced the app programmers to use.

It's not that simple I'm afraid.

----------

this has nothing do with their position on drop box integration, this has to do with drop box app having a sign up and popup for subs to their service in app, when all that should be done privately....they don't care if you pay for their service, unless they get a cut, if they don't want to give a cut, they have to make sure dropbox and all apps with integration don't ask for signups, just ask for login...

its simple, and you people are making it as apple is out to get dropbox, they aren't....they just want a cut if the app wants to get subs, if they chose not to, then they fix the app and problem solved.

Exactly. It sounds like people want in-app subscriptions to be free or at least considerably cheaper. The problem is if it's cheaper then all sales will be converted to the subscription model, cutting out Apple completely, even where the fee is legitimate. I think people are neglecting the fact that the subscriptions can be sold on the developer's websites. If they want to use Apple's better interface, they are going to have to pay for it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Must you purchase a 99$ developer license to submit an App to the App Store? Or can you submit it without that license? If the latter you are paying the 99$ for the benefits the developer tools offer you and not for the ability to submit apps to the Store.

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

Now you say regulate that at the approval stage. But again, how does one establish non-arbitrary rules that don't discriminate against certain developers. How does one keep the developers confident their Apps will get approved? I think many people are proposing unrealistic and over-simplified solutions.

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

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.

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).

 

[Renzatic]

Again that might be ok for music, video, and book services where they content must be hosted by the developers. But consider this example. I decide I want to make a program to compete with Garmin. Now, instead of hosting the maps myself and asking my customers to purchase them individually through in-App purchases where I am responsible for hosting the files, I simply add them all into my free app and require people to buy unlock codes in order to get access to the included maps. This way Apple hosts my App and all the content that is constantly being updated to it every month. They are responsible for all the storage, distribution, etc.

In that scenario, Apple should get their 30% cut. To put it simply...

You have a single application, like a game or a music app, that's hosted on the App Store. Apple deserves their cut.

You have an application that uses Apple's server infrastructure to host files, such as your GPS example, and you charge a monthly subscription for it. Same as above. Apple deserves a cut of your profits. They're doing the heavy lifting here.

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.

 

[babyj]

Apple gets 99$/year for free applications and gets to advertise that they support your service as a selling point for iOS devices. Why do you feel they are entitled to more ?

Why should they get a cut if they aren't involved in the music purchasing that happens afterwards ? You host the music, you distribute it to user through your own infrastructure and you use your own payment processor.

Do you think you should be able to go to your local supermarket, get them to print flyers and distribute them for you to promote your own cut price supermarket? Because that is exactly what you're saying Apply should do.

The iTunes Store is exactly that, a store or rather a shop. Apple are a retailer and if you want to use their shop to sell it will cost you 30%. You also need to view their cut in perspective, Amazon and eBay both charge 15% for sales through their websites for not much more than payment processing.

Anyone would think that the services Apple provide (including distribution and customer service) don't cost them anything. The money to pay for this has to come from somewhere and that isn't free apps.

It's also very easy to forget that Apple had to make a massive ($bn's) investment in the iOS and iTunes Store platform with absolutely zero guarantee it would return a profit. If it hadn't worked then Apple would have been left to pay the bill, it did work so why shouldn't they profit from their investment and risk.

If, as an app developer or content provider, you don't like it then stop moaning and take your products elsewhere.

 

[KnightWRX]

The point is if they want to make use of the convenience of in-App subscriptions, they must abide by the policy in place that guarantees that in other instances, like the one mentioned in 217, don't happen.

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.

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...

 

[DeathChill]

Depends who you talk to. Amazon for instance had to cut out all purchasing and links to their online site in the Kindle app because for them, implementing IAP/IAS meant they basically had to spend money for every book sold.

This in turn leads to Kindle on iOS being crippled compared to Kindle on other platforms, which is bad for the user.

I wholeheartedly agree. Apple needs to rework the 30% thing for in-app subscriptions or purchases, I think.

Square charges 2.75% per transaction to handle credit card transactions. I think it'd be great if Apple charged a 5-10% fee (or something similar) for any IAP or IAS. It'd definitely benefit the user experience as there'd be no signing up separately in Safari or having blocked out features (ala the Kindle app).

 

[KnightWRX]

Do you think you should be able to go to your local supermarket, get them to print flyers and distribute them for you to promote your own cut price supermarket? Because that is exactly what you're saying Apply should do.

Uh ? I don't even get what you're trying to say here. I don't have to pay a supermarket to "host" my product. They buy my products from me and after that, they can do whatever they want with them.

 

[babyj]

Uh ? I don't even get what you're trying to say here. I don't have to pay a supermarket to "host" my product. They buy my products from me and after that, they can do whatever they want with them.

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.