If Microsoft pulled a move like this there would be hell to pay
Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
131–140 of 361 posts
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#132This 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.
I would argue that the success of the entire Android ecosystem is because users are unhappy living inside of Apple's clenched fist. It's not like people buy Android because the UX is better. You can't even claim it's because of AT&T anymore.
I would argue it's because they've become the default freebie phone.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#133Apple's really become a shitty company in the past few years. I was rooting for them when OS X was introduced, but now they're no better than Microsoft in the late 90s, and somehow more arrogant than MS ever was. How does something like this not run afoul of antitrust laws?
If Apple were like Microsoft in the 90s then they would have implemented their own Flash player for the iPad and made its frequent crashes look like Adobe's fault, they'd make it impossible to uninstall or remove Safari from the desktop or dock, and switch Chrome and Firefox for Safari as your default browser every time you upgraded Safari (which would be every time you patched). Every time a mew version of OSX shipped, competing third party apps would become unstable. Software compiled with non Apple tools would generate bogus error messages on pre-release copies of OSX. Apple would develop its own version of Java that ran faster but encouraged developers to use features not available in Java. They'd also bundle apps together so that anyone buying Apple's popular video editor, say, would have a free image editing and page layout programs. They'd steal code from third party developers and turn them into free add ons for their OSes. Oh and they'd simply kill off competitors by releasing free clones of their products. They'd license their OS to hardware vendors on the condition that those vendors pay a license fee for every box shipped even if it didn't have the OS installed. When successfully sued for misconduct, they'd pay some of the fines in the form of strategic donations of software to their competitors' best customers.
Each of these items can be mapped directly to something Microsoft has been demonstrated to have done in the 90s.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#134Earlier 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 ?
What did I link to? I'm well aware of the Apple "rules" as well as the rationale behind them. If you have superiror knowledge about Apple that puts them in a better light, then please share details.
Your title claims that Apple is rejecting apps which use Dropbox.
Which is completely and utterly wrong.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#135Someone explain to me how what Apple is doing is not the same sort of monopoly the government squashed with Microsoft. Basically MS used their os monopoly to push IE. Apple uses its monopoly to get a cut of all action on its phone.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many number of links is the limit? If the mobile site had a link to Google, and Google had an ad for Google Apps, because it's within the webview, does that still mean it's in app purchasing?
Read the linked thread. Apple's issue is quite specific and the fix appears obvious and has been implemented. Don't land on a page selling something bypassing IAP.
Check out the linked post in this comment (esp the screenshot) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3916971
Looks like he had to remove anything that seemed to be a domain name.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#137What's remarkable is that Apple is suppopsedly desintined to be the most profitable company in US history and they still feel the need to do this kind of thing. It says a lot about the character of the company. Pretty sad spectacle, no matter how much money they make.:wq
There are reasons they're the most profitable company in US history, and doing stuff like this is one of those reasons.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#138Do any of the readers on this thread work at Apple? I'd love to have you chime in. The silence is deafening...
Ive worked for Apple and it is no different to any other company.
A policy was put in place that governs the rules around when apps should be rejected or not. The rules haven't really changed for a while now.
The current version of Dropbox SDK violated the in app purchasing rules which app developers unwittingly used. Hence their apps were rejected.
People forget that the employees who are auditing these apps are the equivalent of customer service reps. They aren't developers and their job is to be objective and simply follow the rules.
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument would be more effective without the unnecessary ad hominem. i.e.: > In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here.
I do not think the word "ad hominem" means what you think it means. An "ad hominem" argument is one that targets a specific person advancing the opposing argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious when the characteristics of those people aren't germane to the argument. Obviously, no part of my argument focuses on whoever it was who said Apple's Dropbox rejection is an antitrust violation.
There's a link that I like to give in response to erroneously declared "ad hominem"s. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Since it's so full of examples, even the thickest of nerds can learn!
Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that here. Probably not enough to make a legal case but enough to add another example to the "Some times Apple can be a real dick" list.
Sure. If you wanted to take this further, a source linked from DOJ's website: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde (b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services s…
Here, let me help you with that ;-)
No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient
demand for the purchase of cloud storage separate from a smartphone
OS to identify a distinct product market in which it is
efficient to offer cloud storage separately from the smartphone
OS. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of
two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not
make the contract illegal. Only if user are forced to purchase Apple's
services as a result of Apple's market power would the arrangement
have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, users
are free to purchase a competing smartphone and to use another
cloud storage provider instead of Apple.