101–110 of 361 posts
Do any of the readers on this thread work at Apple? I'd love to have you chime in. The silence is deafening...
I'm fairly sure that a comment on this thread by an Apple employee would result in a pretty quick firing. It's a pretty tight ship over there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people characterizing this as "too far" are ignorant of that fact that Apple is within its rights to enforce whatever they want to. I think the thread is more about "is Apple being a dick here?"... Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either.
Unfortunately, Google is probably not capable of exploiting these mini-resentments and I don't think anybody else is either. I'd love to hear more about that. This is my reasoning on why I think there is an opportunity there: Lets say (patent issues not withstanding), you created an exact clone of the iPad and iOS and sold it at the same price but without the 30% 'apple tax' on purchases. It seems reasonable to assum…
Apple has that covered. You cannot make your services cheaper on other platforms. You have to charge atleast what you charge iOS users for the same service. This is to prevent the success of alternative app stores that will take only 20% or 5% cut. The new ecosystem won't take off because the existing developers cannot afford to completely drop the App Store to jump to a new platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Apple was all about giving consumers the best UX and that revenue would automatically follow... how does a move like this help UX? How come Apple's reviewers are so freaking vigilant about in-app purchases while letting a fart app or a tethering app (or even, until one point, those uploading address books without any alert) slip through so often?
Because the training of the reviewers doesn't cover those cases. Apple is no startup!
Wherever users put their data, and whatever remote storage developers support with their apps, will become entrenched.
Some big players so far (?):
Dropbox
Box
SugarSync
Google Drive
Microsoft SkyDrive
Apple iCloud?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also says a lot about you that you posted this whilst having a fundamental lack of knowledge about the situation. Did you even read what you linked to ?
I understand that you've been trying to make the point that this is a non-story (and I would agree with you, to an extent), but that was just rude and uncalled for. Is it wrong for the GP to try and start a conversation about the morality of a company as large as apple, demanding such a large degree of separation between users and the ability to make purchases outside apple's control? I'm about as 'anti-apple' as the…
After reading through the thread it seems they are rejecting apps because a piece of the Dropbox SDK breaks the App Store guidelines. They are not simply rejecting Dropbox integrated apps. It's well known that you cannot link the user to make a purchase outside of the iOS ecosystem. It was a huge issue with the eBook apps last years. I'm not saying I agree with Apple's stance on that but they are not rejecting apps w…
They are rejecting apps that use the v1.0 or greater of the Dropbox SDK, or apps that use the Dropbox OAUTH API. Or, perhaps they're rejects apps that allow you to create a Dropbox account. That would cover all versions of the Dropbox SDK. The specific reasons they gave are: - "This app contains a link that takes the user to Dropbox via Safari". - "The concern with this app is that the user is taken to Dropbox's webs…
This is on Dropbox to fix, not Apple.
Imagine you provide a marketplace, and you curate that marketplace. And you say to customers who come to that marketplace "Don't worry, we're going to do everything we can to protect you from bad purchases". Then you say to sellers, "No deals behind closed doors. You want access to the marketplace? Sell out in public." Every time you use the iOS in app purchase API, Apple has a way to track the payment. Lets say the customer pays for a service inside of an app that never gets rendered. The customer can then contact Apple who can verify if the payment was processed, and can go about returning the customer's money while policing the marketplace. But if the purchase for a service rendered inside the app happens outside the app, then customers will have a much more difficult time getting recourse for making payments to a service provider (app maker) whose app doesn't work properly or doesn't provide the services that the user payed for.
Having said all that, Dropbox provided this API to developers. They should have built it to work inside these rules. They could let users create Dropbox accounts, they just would not be allowed to charge users from outside of an app for services that would then be rendered inside the app. It sucks, I know, but it's an important part of ensuring the quality of Apple's marketplace.
This is really going over the line. People are content in the walled garden, but if it starts getting too stuffy in there people will want to leave. Unfortunately it makes "business sense" (read: nonsense) for Apple to raise the walls of their walled garden as high as they can make them. Hopefully at some point there will be enough discontent to remove things like this.