Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#351

Post by hahainternet » Thu, May 03, 2012, 12:58 PM UTC

sans-serif wrote: post #214

recoiledsnake wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users Apple is trying to protect their own users from being ripped off by Apple? That's some _really_ twisted logic there. That rule is in place to safeguard their 30% cut. I don't see how the user benefits from having to pay 30% extra instead of getting a 30% discount on the same suppl…

It prevents suppliers from price discriminating (changing iOS users a premium) based on the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay up.

No. It prevents suppliers from price discriminating based on the fact that iOS has an associated 30% cost that the other platforms do not.

That cost goes directly to Apple. It protects Apple, not their consumers. Their consumers see no benefit from 30% of their cost, whether larger or smaller than the alternatives.

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#352

Post by hahainternet » Thu, May 03, 2012, 12:59 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #109

tnash wrote: post #21

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.

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 did and will. Your blanket denial of whole markets is rather ignorant.

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#353

Post by tomrod » Thu, May 03, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

rogerchucker wrote: post #103

tomrod wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the training of the reviewers doesn't cover those cases. Apple is no startup!

For a company whose figurehead once railed against porn, I find awfully amusing that its reviewers allow the fart apps. (You don't have to lecture me how fart != porn, although I have seen some overlap between the two)

Rule 34 there?

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#354

Post by shod » Thu, May 03, 2012, 2:37 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #341

shod wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropbox isn't a software product; it's a service. What's more, it's a service that needs to be priced to compete with Apple's own iCloud.

And it being charged 10 or 13 dollars a month doesn't make much difference, if it offers a compelling service. Software and service prices seem mostly arbitrary to me anyway. How else Aperture went from $300 to $100, Lightroom the same, BBEdit shed 70% of it's price in one day, etc etc... Same, why was iWork a $99 package and now it's 3 components are $10 each on the Mac App Store?

I haven't looked at Aperture or Lightroom, but iWork's price change isn't quite as dramatic or inscrutable as you think: the retail package was $80, and the 3 App store components are $20 each. Apple likely lowered the price as an incentive to push users into its App store, where it gets a cut from every piece of software sold. Dividing the components and selling them individually probably brought in quite a few new users such as myself who didn't want to pay $80 for the full iWork package since it's only Keynote I'm interested in.

Services are more deeply and negatively affected by price changes than software, though. A price change that seems insignificant to you can drive many users away. Look at the fiasco with Netflix last year; they changed their prices by about $6 and subsequently lost about a million subscribers within a few months. Some users see price increases as an indication of a service's instability in the marketplace (and therefore a cue to jump-ship). Most users have lower tolerance thresholds for price differences when comparing services than they do when comparing one-time purchases (like software).

Regardless, now would be a really bad time for Dropbox to increase their pricing. Many Mac & iPhone users are watching iCloud closely and realizing that it could make Dropbox redundant for them. A price increase, even one as small as a ~$30 a year change for their 50+ plan (corollary to your $3 a month change), could push enough users away from the service that Dropbox is better off sticking to its guns.

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#355

Post by kika » Thu, May 03, 2012, 5:03 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #301

mkr-hn wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war.

> You might want to hold off on the ideological rant and re-read. I think cageface was talking about application markets. The same hold true for application markets. In any market where money are involved and parties with interests of their own can get a stronghold on the rules, the results are the same. > I didn't know Google was using their market to bail people out and wage a secret resource war. Well, pushing the…

>"ideological rant" implies that something I said re: "free markets" does not hold true and I say it because of my ideology. Can you point to it?

I can. You didn't say (as in "state") anything. You asked a rapid fire succession of rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions are one of the best indicators of ideology (as in "zealotry").

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#356

Post by kika » Thu, May 03, 2012, 5:13 PM UTC

mirkules wrote: post #311

frogpelt wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each of the things you mentioned were instances in which the government interfered with the open market and made things worse. The free market left to itself would fix most of it's own problems (I say most because I think some regulation is necessary and good). But it requires patience to let the market work.

Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly The free market left to itself will eventually converge into a monopoly.

What's true for railways or airlines is not always true for applications and web services. The barriers in the latter markets are much, much lower.

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#357

Post by marklindhout » Thu, May 03, 2012, 7:35 PM UTC

God dammit, this is so stupid. Fuck Apple. Fuck closed source know-it-all fascist companies. RAAAAAGH!

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#358

Post by sbuk » Thu, May 03, 2012, 10:35 PM UTC

hahainternet wrote: post #350

sbuk wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter? Were they abusive? Did the new enterprise fix prices or stop competitors entering the whole market (Apple are not stopping consumers from signing up for Dropbox, just not through the App Store)?

I find it hilarious that you instantly switched arguments as soon as an example that showed you were incorrect was put forward. Apple are being abusive, few would deny this. Few have. Why are you?

Except I didn't change the 'argument'. I asked a question. Was the new enterprise abusive? There is nothing unlawful about having a monopoly, controlling a market abusively is though.

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#359

Post by anotherthrow » Fri, May 04, 2012, 12:04 PM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #345

anotherthrow wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say this? A market segment just is a market according to the dictionary definitions. And legally, a lot of EU competition law concerns exactly how one individuates such markets/market segments. Can you draw out what you're claiming more?

Not really as its very simple assertion. Apple do not have a monopoly. They control a segment of a rather large, and competitive marketplace. To say that they have a monopoly over their products is not a cogent statement as every manufacturer has such a 'monopoly'. The EU laws that you are referring to concern the abuse of a dominant position in a market, something which Apple as we are all too often reminded do not…

> To say that they have a monopoly over their products is not a cogent statement as every manufacturer has such a 'monopoly'.

Well, I don't know what you mean by 'cogent', as that's generally taken to be a property of arguments and not statements (there may be loser notions, but as I say you'd need to spell out what one you intended). However, the statement that 'Apple have a monopoly over Apple products' is a true statement, which is all that matters to establish the semantic point. It might be trivial, but it's trivially true.

If I might try a helpful suggestion, it seems to me your confusion is arising because you're thinking something like 'if x is a market segment, then x isn't a market'. But of course that doesn't follow, as one can individuate markets at different levels (more or less fine grained).

Re: Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox

#360

Post by sbuk » Fri, May 04, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

anotherthrow wrote: post #359

sbuk wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really as its very simple assertion. Apple do not have a monopoly. They control a segment of a rather large, and competitive marketplace. To say that they have a monopoly over their products is not a cogent statement as every manufacturer has such a 'monopoly'. The EU laws that you are referring to concern the abuse of a dominant position in a market, something which Apple as we are all too often reminded do not…

> To say that they have a monopoly over their products is not a cogent statement as every manufacturer has such a 'monopoly'. Well, I don't know what you mean by 'cogent', as that's generally taken to be a property of arguments and not statements (there may be loser notions, but as I say you'd need to spell out what one you intended). However, the statement that 'Apple have a monopoly over Apple products' is a true s…

"It might be trivial, but it's trivially true." It's trivial to the point of not being relevant. If the justice system were to punish every manufacturer that had a monopoly over their own product then nothing would get made. Cogent isn't perhaps the right word. As statements go "$megaCorp has a monopoly over their own products" is meaningless, yet it is constantly cited in these discussions as reason to pursue damages.