Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts
from the control-control-control dept
While I can understand why developers feel the need to conform to Apple's sometimes ridiculous (and often arbitrary) rules for iOS development, sometimes it really seems like Apple goes to highly questionable (and potentially legally questionable) lengths to reject certain apps. The latest, via Hackernews, is that Apple has been rejecting apps that make use of Dropbox's cloud storage system. The reasoning is particularly ridiculous:Reason for rejection is the fact that if the user does not have Dropbox application installed then the linking authorization is done through Safari (as per latest SDK).Dropbox is trying to work around Apple's excessive rules, but the whole thing seems a bit crazy. At some point you have to wonder when Apple is going to trip various antitrust rules about using its dominant position on the platform to hurt other companies. It seems developers are eventually going to recognize that, even with Apple's giant market, it might just be easier to focus on more reasonable and open platforms.
Once the user is in Safari it is possible for the user to click "Desktop version" and navigate to a place on Dropbox site where it is possible to purchase additional space.
Apple views this as "sending user to an additional purchase" which is against rules.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, apps, ios, walled garden
Companies: apple, dropbox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to spit hairs, but doesn't this seem to indicate that it's Safari that's in violation...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: and.....
Well played sir!
Well played!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and perhaps more pleasing to the developers as well. even if the app is free, if customers are happy, the easier experience would probably do more to encourage the developer to, well, develop! life is full of hassle so let's face it, who needs more when it's unnecessary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple answer
Admittedly this will kill the ipad/iphone etc as a general platform as searching for stuff would be a bitch, but its the easiest and simplest solution with only one downside:
apple goes out of business.
Wait, did I say downside? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
technically this makes apple pimps and should lead to criminal charges.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. Safari is the Apple web browser, which browses the web.
2. The web is a place where it is possible to purchase many things.
Therefore, what the fuck is Apple doing on the web?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patents, walled-gardens, lawsuits, illogical contrivances and oxymorons like "corporate personhood", "corporate rights" and other greed grabs all backed up by the farce (typo intended) of "law".
Said so-called "law" is the concrete that will eventually solidify upon the gears of techmology and cause the entire works to cease and become useless.
Do you remember when the technology business was about freedom and open standards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I know it doesn't matter since anything produced in-house will be above the rules. These things just make me feel better about only building Mac-compatible PCs and downloading OSX ISOs...
In their garden the rules don't apply evenly...guess what happens in my garden?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow!
It warms my heart, actually. I've had nothing but contempt for Apple since 1985.
And if you guys are any indication, I'd say Apple stock has peaked. Sell 'em if you got 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple users are and odd bunch
As for the antitrust thing, if Microsoft was doing what Apple is doing, there would be alarms going off everywhere. Somehow Apple is seen as some kind of benevolent dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All that is necessary for Apple to triumph is for Google men to do nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: and.....
Let the fanboys buy their iSoftware while the rest of us Techie Geeks just build a smokin fast Rig for a lot less and run Win 7 on it.And have a lot more Apps and Games to fool with.
I will not buy an Apple nor will I ever want to buy an Apple.
I would rather eat one.Lately been eating Pink Lady and Braeburns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple and Drop Box Exclusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Er ... wouldn't any app that redirected to Safari violate this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanity people...
Apple implemented the policy to prevent outside purchases not just to protect their eco-system but also to prevent scammers.
The reason they did this was to aid the average (read:not informed) person from paying for something that they did not expect to, or for signing up for a reoccurring service they did not mean to.
Not do I think this situation is wrong. Well, heck yeah.
Policy is a way to belay thinking. In this case they did not engage thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sanity people...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inconsistent Approval Process
The reviewer disqualified our app update until this was "fixed". Obviously this wasn't part of our app, it was their website--but we asked them to remove the donation link for a week. After the approval they put the link back up.
In our case it was obvious that the reviewer had no idea how IOS works, or how it's programmed. But it's sadly typical of some of the arbitrary ways you can interpret their rules on this area.
Look, we all know Apple wants to get paid, but they do have a major issue if their own people don't understand how this "should" work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Er ... wouldn't any app that redirected to Safari violate this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090522/1051084979.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
would chain themselves to a closed platform is beyond me."
Blind people. I am blind and Apple is the only and I mean only vendor selling a fully accessible product.
Screen readers for Windows cost 1000 US$, and there is no equivalent free alternative for linux.
Apple is corporate evil but the only in town caring about the disabled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sanity people...
How very thoughtful of them. And the fact that they get 30% cut of every sale is just an unfortunate side affect. I guess it is kind of like paying for protection; only who protects you from Apple?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sanity people...
Apple pays for and maintains the marketplace.
I don't like the constrains of the Apple App store and iTunes store, but I am also not the person to decide where people should spend their money.
So people can decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Every version of Windows I've used since Windows XP has had the accessibility tools. Which include a free text to speech application.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Apple users are and odd bunch
I don't know about that, yet, but the apple blossoms are certainly starting to wilt. It wasn't all that long ago that my iPhone-wielding friends were all about how awesome iPhones are. Nowadays, however, every single one of them drools over my Infuse and wishes they had something like that instead. They're chafing at Apples' restrictions, from basic things like being unable to swap out batteries, more esoteric things like the fight over jailbreaking and the increasing problem of desired apps not being available for the iPhone, and much more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Maybe they all suck, I don't know, but there are several free Linux screen readers available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny
Either way, it's pretty funny.
If you don't like the way Apple does business, suck it up and take your money elsewhere, but give the rest of us a break and talk about something that actually matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Apple users are and odd bunch
I would expect Apple to have a bigger screen this time with the iPhone 5, LTE and there is a slight chance of quad core. If they manage to put out a quad core + LTE in the USA they might be the only company with one. HTC & Samsung phones that are quad core in the EU are dual core in the USA if they have LTE so far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott Apple!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Mac Voiceover is far superior and integrates with even OpenOffice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Funny
I see no such assumptions, implicit or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow!
I don't think we are any indication.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm running cyanogenmod-7 on my phone. I can checkout the full sources from git if i felt like it. I'm free to extend/modify/etc to my hearts content. My phone will load any valid APK I want it to, regardless if google/my carrier/my handset vendor wants me to or not. Anyways, in that respect I would say it is open. It isn't open like RMS would like, but then even my desktop (running gentoo linux) doesn't. I have the nvidia driver installed, and skype.
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
https://github.com/CyanogenMod
http://source.android.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sanity people...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but means nothing to users
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems legit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Heck, I can go compile the source code myself right now if I wanted to and tweak it to my heart's content and get a completely one off version of Android that ONLY I will have (unless I decide to share it). That's as open as it gets. iOS, hahaha! Yeah. No comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: and.....
:/ I think that's a bit untrue. I mean, Windows 7 is great for Windows, but it's still Windows. Security holes, proprietariness, oh, and the most annoying, intrusive auto-update system ever. Windows? Eh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]